American Environmental Justice Movement

8/16/2019 American Environmental Justice Movement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/american-environmental-justice-movement 1/16

5/31/2015 American Environmental Justice Movement | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.iep.utm.edu/enviro-j/

The American En vironmental Justice

Movement

The origin of the American environmental justice movement can be traced back to the

emergence of the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and more specifically to the

U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. The movement reached a new level with the emergence of Robert

Bullard’s work entitled Dumping in Dixie in the 1990’s, which constituted a clarion call for

environmental justice. Although environmentalism and the environmental justice movement

are related, there is a difference. Environmentalism is concerned with humanity’s adverse

impact upon the environment, but proponents are primarily concerned with the impact of an

unhealthy environment thrust upon a collective body of life, entailing both human and non-

human existence, including in some instances plant life. The efforts of the environmental justice

mov ement differ from those of the environmentalist movement in that, at the heart of

environmental injustice, there are issues of racism and socio-economic injustice. Although

environmentalism focuses upon and acknowledges the negative impact of humanity’s actions

upon the environment, the environmental justice movement builds upon the philosophy and

work of environmentalism by stressing the manner in which adversely impacting the

environment in turn adversely impacts the population of that environment.

Table of Contents

1. The Definition of Environmental Justice

2. History of the Environmental Justice Movement

3. Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice

4. Principles of the Environmental Justice Movement

5. Causes of Environmental Injustice

6. Major Events in the Environmental Justice Movement

7. Environmental Justice Policy and Law

8. References and Further Reading

a. Books

b. Journals

http://-/?-

http://www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/




http://www.iep.utm.edu/enviro-j/ 2

c. Governmental and Legal Publications

1. The Definition of Environmental Justice

Although the origin of the environmental justice movement is traced to the passing of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, Robert Bullard’s work entitled Dumping in Dixie published in the 1990’s is

considered to be the first book addressing the reality of environmental injustice. The workexamines the widening economic, health and environmental disparities between racial groups

and socioeconomic groups at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first

centuries. Bullard states that in writing the book he operated with the assumption that al

Americans have a basic right to live, work, play, go to school and worship in a clean and healthy

environment ( DD, xii). Bullard’s analysis in Dumping in Dixie “chronicles the emergence of the

environmental justice movement in an effort to develop common strategies that are supportive

of building sustainable African American communities and other people of color communities.”

( DD, xiii).

Bullard’s wife, a practicing attorney, suggested that he study the spatial location of all the

municipal solid-waste disposal facilities in Houston, Texas. This was done as part of a class-

action lawsuit filed by Bullard’s wife against the city of Houston, the State of Texas, and

Browning Ferris Industries. The lawsuit originated from a plan to site a municipal landfill in a

suburban, middle-income neighborhood of single-family homeowners. The lawsuit became

known as Bearn v. Southwestern Waste Management and was the first lawsuit in the United

States charging environmental discrimination in waste facility location under the Civil Rights

Act. The Northwood Manor neighborhood consisted of over 82 percent African American

residents ( DD, xii).

The emergence of the environmental justice movement is directly linked to the environmental

movement. Some contend that environmentalism and the environmental justice movement are

so interrelated that the movement has essentially redefined the nature of environmentalism.

According to Bullard, an environmental revolution is taking shape in the United States which

“has touched communities of color from New York to California and from Florida to Alaska” and

any location “where African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native

Americans live and comprise a major portion of the population” (CER, 7). The influence of the

environmental justice movement has broadened the spectrum of environmentalism to include

what might be regarded as the trivialities of life, according to Bullard. This includes activities

such as play and attending school. It also has implications for something as simple as where

humans, animals and plants reside. Bullard points out that the environmental justice movement

in the United States focuses upon a diversity of areas including wilderness and wildlife

http://-/?-





preservation, resource conservation, pollution abatement and population control ( DD, 1). The

environmental justice movement served to interrelate the physical, social, and cultural

dimensions of human, non-human and plant existence under the rubric of environmentalism in

general and environmental justice in particular. ( Bullard, 1999) The environmental justice

movement has indirectly heightened concern not only for human existence, but also for animals

and plant life. The reality is that no single definition of environmental justice exists. However, a

significant legal definition used by the Environmental Protection Agency describesenvironmental justice as:

[T]he fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, ethnicity,

income, national origin, or educational level with respect to the development,

implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair

treatment means that no population, due to policy or economic disempowerment, is forced

to bear a disproportionate burden of the negative human health or environmental impacts

of pollution or other environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and

commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and

policies ( EPA, 2).

The environmental justice movement is concerned with the pursuit of social justice and the

preamble to the Principles of environmental justice adopted at the First National People of

Color Environmental Leadership Summit in Washington D.C., 1991 reflects the primacy of this

concern. According to the environmental justice movement, all Americans, regardless of

whether they are white or black, rich or poor, are entitled to equal protection under the law.

The environmental justice advocates for quality education, employment, and housing, as wel

as the health of physical environments in which individuals, families and groups live ( DD, 7).

While the environmental justice movement is rooted in significant philosophical/sociologica

underpinnings, the movement strives to be intensely practical. Few environmentalists realize

the sociologic implications of what has been termed the “not-in-my-backyard” phenomenon

which entails the recognition of the reality that hazardous waste, garbage dumps and polluting

industries will inevitably be located in someone’s backyard. The question then emerges as to

whose and which backyards these toxic entities will be located? Bullard concluded based upon

sociological analysis that these entities frequently end up in poor, powerless, black communities

rather than affluent suburbs and he adds that this has been the case repeatedly ( DD, 4).

It is important to note that the movement is critical of Western theories of jurisprudence and

philosophy, which are founded upon Kantian, Cartesian and Lockean assumptions. For instance,

Kantian jurisprudence is committed to the idea of the universality of rules in addressing a wide





range of moral issues, whereas Cartesian dualism devalues the significance of physical existence

and threats to that existence, and the philosophical conclusions of John Locke preserves

individualism at the expense of the collective group. The environmental justice movement

rejects each of these, concluding that no universal law or rule can be applied in a diversity of

moral contexts, that the physical existence of a collective body is to be aggressively protected,

and, finally, that no one individual or particular group is to be victimized for the benefit of

another. In short, such theories do not "embrace the whole community of life as the relevantmoral community" ( Rasmussen, 12). Not only do these traditional philosophical underpinnings

of the Western worldview fail to include members of the total human community, these

approaches also fail to acknowledge the significance of life in the non-human sphere.

It is also important to note that environmental justice advocates reject the Rawlsian

understanding of justice as "fairness". In acknowledging the reality of social, economic and

moral inequity, Rawls argued that these inequities must be based upon the condition of benefit

to the least advantaged. In the philosophy of the environmental justice movement, however, to

adopt Rawls’ definition of justice and to tolerate the existence of actual instances of inequities

and injustice based upon benefit to the collective victims reflects a perpetuation of centuries of

oppression, which have become part and parcel of inadequate and distorted forms of

institutional decision-making ( Deane Drummond, 10). Furthermore, for environmental justice

proponents, "justice is justice as distribution, recognition, and participation, linked in ways that

address the wellbeing of the whole community of life in a given locale" ( Rasmussen, 17).

Part of the uniqueness of the environmental justice movement is the focus on injustice as a

collective experience. Consequently, those in the movement strive for the actual pursuit

promotion, and establishment of better living conditions in the midst of collective entities, both

human and non-human. As such, at its very core the environmental justice movement is

transformational and strives to empower collective victims of environmental injustice with the

capacity for self-provision, self-organization, and self-governance ( Rasmussen, 17).

In addition and as previously indicated, there is an important distinction to be made between

environmentalism and the environmental justice movement. While environmentalism is

concerned with environmental injustice and the pursuit of justice, it is primarily concerned with

the abuse of the environment by a hierarchical model which places humanity at the top with the

result being the abuse of nature. On the other hand, environmental justice advocates are more

concerned with what is termed "social ecology" or "human welfare ecology." Their primary

concern is the impact of institutional systemic flaws which are the natural result of a

progression of historical events resulting in decisions which establish unjust living conditions

upon one group of people due to a lack of organization, power and prominence. At the risk of







justice movement is concerned are also contained within movements outside the United States

dialogue and debate.

2. History of the Environmental Justice Movement

The environmental justice movement originated with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and of Title VI, which prohibited the use of federal funds to discriminate on the basis of race,color and national origin. The movement is also related to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King

in the late 1960’s and his efforts on behalf of black sanitation workers in the city of Memphis,

Tennessee. In 1969, Ralph Abascal of the California Rural Legal Assistance filed a suit on behalf

of six migrant farm workers, which resulted in the banning of the pesticide DDT. In addition,

Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that same year. In 1971, the

President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) acknowledged racial discrimination which

adversely affected urban poor and the quality of their environment. In 1978, the Houston

Northwood Manor subdivision residents protested the Whispering Pines Sanitary Landfill and

in 1979 Linda McKeever Bullard filed a lawsuit on behalf of Houston’s Northeast Community

Action Group. T his lawsuit, titled Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Inc, constituted

the first civil rights suit challenging the siting of a waste facility. The United Church of Christ

Commission for Racial Justice issued the “Toxic Waste and Race in the United States” report in

1987. The report was the first national study exposing the relationship between waste facility

location and race. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1990 and Bullard’s book Dumping in Dixie

was published in the same year. This particular work constituted the first textbook on

environmental justice. The first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit

was held in Washington in 1991. In 1994, The Environmental Justice Resource Center was

formed at Clark Atlanta University in Atlanta, Georgia. In addition, during the same year the

Washington Office on Environmental Justice (WOEJ) opened in Washington D.C. The United

States environmental justice movement progressed onto the global stage in 1995 when

environmental justice delegates participated in the 4 World Conference on Women in Beijing.

The environmental justice movement has existed for more than two decades, reaching an apex

in the 1990’s. The movement emerged from an increased awareness of the disproportionately

high impacts of environmental pollution on economically and politically disadvantaged

communities. It addresses issues such as social, economic and political marginalization of

minorities and low income populations, and is also concerned with the perceived increase of

pollution not only in neighborhoods and communities, but also in the workplace.

There is no specific founding point for the environmental justice movement, but it was

largely created through the fusion of two other movements — the economic analysis of the

th





anti-toxics movement and the racial critique of the Civil Rights movement — and the over-

arching perspective of a third — faith. Other strong contributions have come from

academia, from Native Americans, and the labor. (Timeline)

African Americans did not significantly challenge the environmental problems adversely

affecting their communities prior to the call for environmental justice. The shift from denial to

acknowledgment and action emerged during the 1980’s. Until that time African Americanresistance was largely limited to concern with local issues and generally was concerned with the

individualistic nature of the African American struggle for equality. However, in the 1980’s a

transition took place which would give rise to the environmental justice movement as an

extension of the Civil Rights movement. This shift took place under the designation of

“environmental activism” ( DD, 29).

The environmental justice movement is credited with having begun in Warren County, North

Carolina. In this locale residents demonstrated against a landfill which would be placed in their

county. The reaction of the citizens concerning the issue reflected the merging of civil rights

activists and environmentalists. Representatives from these two groups are alleged to have laid

down in front of trucks transferring large amounts of PCB-contaminated soil into the largely

African American populated area of Warren County. While the Warren County demonstrations

were unsuccessful, they did achieve the result of bringing a renewed focus to the issue of the

disproportionately high impact of environmental pollution upon minority communities such as

Warren County. Ultimately, this event also placed environmental justice concerns onto the

political agenda.

In 1992, a National Law Journal report alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) had discriminated in its enforcement of environmental protection law thereby supporting

the observations of those among whom the movement originally emerged. The report indicated

that federal fines were more lax for industries operating in communities of color. In addition,

the report also contended that the cleanup of environmental disasters in communities of color

were much slower than those carried out in the context of wealthier white communities.

Furthermore, the report indicated that standards for clean up in communities of color were not

as well established or rigid as those applied in white communities.

3. Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice

Environmental justice advocates argue that an intimate relationship exists between the trilogy

of environmental racism, environmental discrimination, and environmental policymaking.

Environmental injustice and environmental racism have their roots in a politico-institutional





context bent toward discrimination. Municipal, state, and federal regulations are, therefore,

aimed at permitting, condoning and even promoting environmental racism.

In addition, environmental justice proponents contend that governmental policy is also bent

toward the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste disposal and also the

establishing of polluting industries in those communities. Further, policy and legislation not only

permit but also endorse the official sanctioning of life-threatening poisons and pollutants beinglocated in communities of color. Environmental justice advocates also contend that residents of

victimized people groups are ostracized from access to political power and consequently have

been excluded from service on decision-making boards and regulatory bodies, thereby subtly

yet deliberately promoting environmental injustice and environmental racism. Each of these

elements contributes to the existence and propagation of environmental injustice and

environmental racism (CER, 3).

Environmental justice proponents contend, "Experiences of environmental racism and injustice

are not random, nor are they individual." Consequently, the environmental justice movement is

concerned with these two matters, collectivism and perceived intentionality. On the one hand

environmental justice advocates concern themselves with environmental injustice as it happens

to groups; and on the other hand, environmental justice advocates are also concerned with the

systemic causes of environmental injustice (Rasmussen, 3-4).

Robert Bullard states that race is a major factor in predicting the placement of Locally

Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs). Some would contend that socio-economic class is the centra

issue, however. Bullard counters that while race and class are combined factors, race is still the

predominant factor. Environmental justice activists pronounce that race dominates policy

decisions made by those in positions of power since the power arrangements of socio-economic

institutions are out of balance.

Bullard also advances that environmental justice is not a social program, nor is it an affirmative

action program and also that ultimately the central concern of the movement is the

implementation of justice. In addition, Bullard maintains that the consideration of race in the

environmental justice movement, while constituting a portion of the problematic equation

associated with environmental injustice is not the only concern of the movement.

We are just as much concerned with inequities in Appalachia, for example, where the whites are

basically dumped on because of lack of economic and political clout and lack of having a voice to

say 'no' and that's environmental injustice. We are try ing to work with folks across the politica

spectrums; democrats, republicans, independents, on the reservations, in the barrios, in the





ghettos, on the border and internationally to se what we address these issues in a

comprehensive manner. (Interview)

However, in his earlier work entitled Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the

Grassroots, Bullard does give voice to his belief that the problem of environmental injustice is to

a large extent a racially oriented problem and that this is a problem which communities of color

face. He couches his discussion concerning environmental justice in the context of therecognition that at the heart of the problem of environmental injustice is a racially divided

nation in which extreme racial inequalities persist. However, by the time of Bullard’s more

major work entitled Dumping in Dixie, he had acknowledged that the reality of environmental

injustice transcends the issue of the victimization of any one race or ethnic group (CER, 7).

4. Principles of the Environmental Justice Movement

The result of the 1992 National Law Journal report concluded that the EPA had discriminated

in its enforcement of Environmental Protection Law Report, which was intended to remedy the

reality of environmental racism in the United States. Consequently, in 1991 at the First

National People of Color Leadership Summit meeting in Washington D.C., the Principles of

Environmental Justice were adopted. These principles represent an initial rallying cry on

behalf of those inhabitants, human and non-human, who are the victims of environmental

injustice, and eventually established a context for a guide to action regarding governmental

legislation. Those principles are:

1. Environmental justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity and the

interdependence of all species, and the right to be free from ecological destruction.

2. Environmental justice demands that public policy be based on mutual respect and justice

for all peoples, free from any form of discrimination or bias.

3. Environmental justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced and responsible uses of

land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and

other living things.

4. Environmental justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, extraction

production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and nuclear testing that

threaten the fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food.

5. Environmental justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and

environmental self-determination of all peoples.

6. Environmental justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins, hazardous

wastes, and radioactive materials, and that all past and current producers be held

strictly accountable to the people for detoxification and the containment at the point of





production.

7. Environmental justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level

of decision-making including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement

and evaluation.

8. Environmental justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work

environment, without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and

unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free fromenvironmental hazards.

9. Environmental justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive

full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care.

10. Environmental justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation

of international law, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the United Nations

Convention on Genocide.

11. Environmental justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship of Native

Peoples to the U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants

affirming sovereignty and self-determination.

12. Environmental justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies to clean up

and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring the cultural

integrity of all our communities, and providing fair access for all to the full range of

resources.

13. Environmental justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent

and a halt to the testing of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and

vaccinations on people of color.

14. Environmental justice opposes the destructive operations of multi-national corporations.

15. Environmental justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands

peoples and cultures, and other life forms.

16. Environmental justice calls for the education of present and future generations, which

emphasizes social and environmental issues, based on our experience and an

appreciation of our diverse cultural perspectives.

17. Environmental justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer

choices to consume as little of Mother Earth's resources and to produce as little waste as

possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to

insure the health of the natural world for present and future generations (ejnet).

The First National People of Color Leadership Summit brought together hundreds of

environmental justice activists representing both the national as well as the global stage. The

objective of the conference was to advocate for local and regional environmental justice activism

in the form of both regional and ethnic networks. The Summit led to the creation of the Asian





Pacific Environmental Network, the Northeast Environmental Justice Network, the Southern

Organizing Committee for Economic and Environmental Justice and the Midwest/Great Lakes

Environmental Justice Network. In 1993 Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana introduced the

Environmental Justice Act of 1993 that addressed assertions that poor and minority areas are

disproportionately affected by environmental pollution. Representative John Lewis, Democrat

from Georgia introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

5. Causes of Environmental Injustice

Environmental injustice is said to exist when members of disadvantaged ethnic minority or

other groups suffer disproportionately at the local, regional (subnational), or national levels

from environmental risks or hazards or from violations of fundamental human rights as a result

of environmental factors. In addition, environmental injustice has occurred when an individua

or group of individuals is denied access to environmental investments, benefits, and natural

resources. Furthermore, environmental injustice has taken place when individuals or collective

groups are denied access to information, and/or participation in decision-making, as well as

access to justice in environment-related matters. The study of environmental injustice has the

responsibilities of examining the hierarchies of power that are inherent in any given socio-

cultural context and the manner in which those hierarchies not only tolerate but also propagate

environmental injustice against any number of disadvantaged people groups (EIPS, 2).

One cause of environmental injustice is institutionalized racism. Institutionalized racism is

defined as the practical reality of deliberately and intentionally targeting neighborhoods and

communities comprised of a majority of people of low socio-economic status and of a collective

group of individuals of color and is considered to be the natural outgrowth of racism. According

to environmental justice proponents, this racism has become acculturated and engrained in

contemporary social institutions, not the least of which is a governmental bureaucracy on the

municipal, state, and federal levels which not only permits but reinforces the imposition of

environmental injustice upon these groups. Bunyan Bryant defines environmental racism as

"the systematic exclusion of people of color from environmental decisions affecting their

communities" (Bryant, 5 and Rasmussen, 8).

Another factor leading to the reality of environmental injustice is the commoditization of land

water, energy and air. This has resulted in their being secured and protected for the benefit of

those in power over those who lack power. Advocates of environmental justice remind that

regardless of our status in life, we all exist collectively within the context of this biosphere.

Therefore "we breathe the same air, share the same atmosphere with the same ozone layer and

climate patterns, eat food from the same soils and seas, and harvest the same acid rain"





(Rasmussen, 8).

In addition, the unresponsive and unaccountable governmental policies and regulations which

exist at all levels of government contribute to environmental racism and environmental

injustice. Government authorities are frequently unresponsive to community needs regarding

environmental inequities due to the existence of an oppressive power structure. Furthermore

governmental availability to powerful corporations who exert power as an act of self-interestalso poses problems. Consequently, the victims of environmental injustice find it difficult if not

impossible to use governmental resources and power to advance their cause (Rasmussen, 8).

Moreover, the lack of resources and power in affected communities is a major contributor to the

presence of environmental racism. In addition to the previous obstacles is the common

denominator of powerlessness on the part of the victimized on the basis of few financia

resources to invest in the struggle for environmental justice and also the lack of power by the

victims of environmental injustice. Specifically, the groups adversely affected by environmental

inequities lack the capacity to function as an organized block representing their interests against

those in the contest of authority and affluence (Rasmussen, 8).

Finally, a piecemeal approach to regulation which allows loopholes and the consequent ongoing

victimization of low-income populations of color contributes to the reality of environmental

racism. The ongoing process of governmental regulation also poses a problem in combating

environmental injustice and the implementation of environmental justice. The consequent gaps

between pieces of legislation which are passed in an effort to combat environmental injustice

frequently provide a context for the skirting the intent of this legislation (Rasmussen, 8).

6. Major Events in the Environmental JusticeMovement

A major event contributing to the development of the environmental movement in the United

States was the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Act established a

foundation for United States environmental policy and required that "any major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" requires evaluation and public

disclosure of potential environmental impact through the required Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). The EIS required by NEPA applies broadly to such categories as highways

and other forms of transit projects and programs, natural resource leasing and extraction

industrial farming and policies governing genetically modified crops, as well as large scale urban

development projects (NEPA 1969). NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The Act

establishes national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and





enhancement of the environment and it provides a process for implementing these goals within

the federal agencies.

NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). In its 1971 annual report

CEQ noted that populations of low-income people of color were disproportionately exposed to

significant environmental hazards. This recognition constitutes the earliest governmental report

acknowledging the existence of what may be termed environmental inequality in the UnitedStates. In 1983 Robert Bullard published his groundbreaking case study of waste disposa

practices in Houston, Texas entitled "Solid Waste Sites and the Black Houston Community."

The case study resulted in the publication of Bullard's Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and

Environmental Quality in1990. Bullard's original study discovered that waste sites were not

scattered on a random basis throughout the city of Houston, but that they were more likely to

be located in African American neighborhoods and even more shockingly near schools. Bullard's

work was the first actual study to examine the causes of environmental racism. Bullard

discovered a multiplicity of factors which led to the environmental inequality including housing

discrimination, lack of zoning and racially and socio-economically insensitive decisions made by

public officials over a period of fifty years.

In 1983, further documenting the realities of environmental discrimination, a congressionally

authorized U.S. General Accounting Office study uncovered that three out of four off-site

commercial hazardous waste landfills in the southeastern United States were located within

predominately African American communities. This was the reality despite the fact that African

Americans made up only one-fifth of the region’s population. In 1990, sociologist Robert Bullard

published his influential work entitled Dumping in Dixie.His was the first major study of

environmental racism linking hazardous facility locations with historical patterns of segregation

in the South. In addition, Bullard's study was one of the first to explore the social and

psychological impacts of environmental racism on local populations, as well as acknowledging

the emerging environmental justice movement as a response from the communities against

these increasingly documented environmental threats.

On February 11, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, to focus

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-

income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The

Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to help federal

agencies address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of

their programs on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended to promote

nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment. It aims to





provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information and public

participation in matters relating to human health and the environment. The Presidential

Memorandum accompanying the Order underscores certain provisions of existing law that can

help ensure that all communities and persons across the nation live in a safe and healthy

environment. Also in 1994, The Environmental Protection Agency renamed the Office of

Environmental Equity as the Office of Environmental Justice. The Environmental Justice Act of

1999 introduced into the U.S. Legislature was also a sign of significant progress. In 2003 theEPA established the environmental justice bibliographic database.

7. Environmental Justice Policy and Law

The environmental justice movement credits its momentum and effectiveness to the U.S

Constitution and three significant pieces of legislation: Title VI 601; 602; and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

The Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection

Prior to the establishing of terms such as "environmental justice" or environmental racism",

residents living in minority communities who believed they were the victims of unfair

environmental policy brought fourteenth amendment actions before local municipalities seeking

fair treatment. In Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 1983, discrimination in street paving, water

distribution, and storm draining services was established. In United Farm Workers of Florida

v. City of Delray Beach, 1974 it was established that there were violations of farm workers' civil

rights by city officials. In Johnson v. City of Arcadia, 1978 the court found discrimination in

access to paved streets, parks, and the water supply. The Supreme Court's decision

in Washington v. Davis, 1976 announced the rule that impermissible discrimination under the

Fourteenth Amendment requires a showing of intent, not simply of disparate impact. In Village

of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Co., 1977 the Court established a

set of factors to determine whether invidious discrimination underlies an otherwise legitimate

exercise of government authority.

Title VI, Civil Rights Act 601, 602, and 42 U.S.C. 198

Title VI, Civil Rights Act 601 states, "no person in the United States shall on the grounds of

race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial

assistance.” (U.S.C. 1994) Title VI, Civil rights Act 602 requires "agencies that disperse federal

funds to promulgate regulations implementing Title VI Civil rights Act and to create an

enforcement framework that details the manner in which discrimination claims will be





processed" (Shanahan, 403-406).

In addition to the two foregoing Acts, environmental justice advocates also use 42 U.S.C. 1983

in order to establish that the effect of the agencies’ decision will have a negative impact on the

community. 42 U.S.C. 1983 states:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of anyState or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of

the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law (U.S.C. 1983).

These pieces of legislation were beneficial to the environmental justice movement until 2001

when the Supreme Court, in Alexander v. Sandoval held that “602 does not provide an implied

private right of action to enforce disparate impact regulations promoted by federal agencies

pursuant to 602.”

8. References and Further Reading

a. Books

Bullard Robert, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. WestviewPress, 2000. (cited as DD)

Bullard, Robert, Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. South

End Press, 1993. (cited as CER)

Bryant, Bunyan, ed. Environmental Justice: Issues, Problems, and Solutions. Island

Press, 1995. (cited as EJ)

Camacho, David E. Environmental Injustices, Political Struggles: Race, Class, and the

Environment. Duke University Press, 1988. (cited as EIPS)

Rawls, John, Theory of Justice 2nd Edition Oxford University Press, 1 999. (cited as TJ)Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Re-statement. Belknap Press, 2001. (cited as JF)

b. Journals

Environmental Justice: An Interview with Robert Bullard, Earth First Journal, July

1999. (cited as Interview)

Drummond, Celia Deane, “Environmental Justice and the Economy: A Christian




Theologians Views” Ecotheology 11.3 2006: 24-34 (Deane Drummond)

Lee, Charles, “environmental justice: Building a Unified Vision of Health and the

Environment” Environmental Health Perspectives 10, Supplement 2 (April 2002), 141-

144.

Rasmussen, Larry, “Environmental Racism and environmental justice: Moral Theory in

the Making? Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 24 1 (2004): 11-28. (cited

as Rasmussen)Shanahan, Alice M. “Permitting Justice: EPA’s Revised Guidance for Investigating Title

VI Administrative Complaints. ENVTL. LAWYER 403, 406 (Feb. 2001) (citing the Civi

Rights Act of 1964, §602, 78 Stat. at 252-253). (cited as Shanahan)

c. Governmental and Legal Publications

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2002). (cited as U.S.C. 1983)

42 U.S.C. § 2000 (d) (1994). (cited as U.S.C. 1994)

Alexander v . Sandoval 532 U.S. 275 (cited as Alexander)

Author Information

Eddy F. Carder

Email: [email protected]

Prairie View A & M University

U. S. A.

mailto:[email protected]

American Environmental Justice Movement

Documents