Dear Bryan:

This policy area is vexed by high emotion and social and economic complexity. Tread with care.

Unfortunately, the sources used in your report obscure rather than illuminate. A cynic might suggest they were selected to support an agenda.

For a richer, more nuanced discussion of this issue may I suggested the literature below?

(1) The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice, Christopher H. Foreman.

(2) Three law review articles by Vicki Been, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of Law:

"Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods. Disparate Siting or Market Dynamics?," 103 Yale Law Journal 1383 (1999)

"Coming to the Nuisance or Going to the Barrios: A Longitudinal Analysis of Environmental Justice Claims," 24 Ecology Law Quarterly 1 (1997) (with Francis Gupta)

"Analyzing Evidence of Environmental Justice," 11 Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 1 (1995)

and

(3) “The Locality of Waste Sites Within the City of Chicago: A Demographic, Social, and Economic Analysis.” Brett Baden and Don Coursey. University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Working Paper No. 97

Here’s an excerpt from the abstract:

This report expands on the 1994 study "Environmental Racism in the City of Chicago: The History of EPA Hazardous Waste Sites in African American Neighborhoods" (1994). The previous study investigated the existence or absence of environmental racism in Chicago; it examined the location of a random sample of the CERCLA ("Superfund," National Priority, or potential Superfund) hazardous waste sites - most of which are the legacy of heavy industry. The study found no correlation between the location of hazardous waste sites and greater numbers of African Americans, in other words, race played an unimportant role in explaining the geographical history of CERCLA sites.

There is no evidence that African Americans live in areas with higher concentrations of hazardous waste then whites or Hispanics. The percentage of Hispanics in an area, however, is significant in describing the location of CERCLA sites and solid waste disposal sites. This may be due to the relatively recent in-migration of increasing numbers of Hispanics into predominantly white ethnic neighborhoods. Surprisingly, areas where RCRA and solid waste disposal sites are located tend to have higher incomes; this is likely the result of the recent trend in construction of high price river-front residences in previously industrial areas.

The City of Chicago and other American cities have rich and complicated histories involving ebbs and flows in industry and wealth, in the ethnic and racial composition of their populations, and in patterns of land use. Any or all of these may affect how a waste site came to be located in a given community. The conclusions of this report echo those of its predecessor: we should proceed with caution in applying labels of "fair" and "unfair" to the outcomes produced by the complex interactions between social, historical, and economic forces.

Interesting point. One of the researchers who spole at the conference, Liam Downey, of the Univ. of Colorado, essentially said the same thing, suggesting that site specific historical and economic research is needed to examine this topic. Yet there does seem to be quite a bit of empirical evidence showing that, whatever the historic or economic or cultural reasons, low-income and minority populations in the Rocky Mountain region are exposed to more potential environmental risk. I think it's worth asking whether that's "fair" regardless of that historic context. And more importantly, acknowledging that these inequities exist, for whatever reason, may give us some tools to keep from repeating the pattern in the future.

Bob you write:

"...there does seem to be quite a bit of empirical evidence showing that, whatever the historic or economic or cultural reasons, low-income and minority populations in the Rocky Mountain region are exposed to more potential environmental risk."

Here's perhaps a useful way to extend your question. Assume that the risk of living next to a superfund site carries low risk to human health. (No one advocates people living in proximity to locations with quantifiable and serious risk of harm.)

Homes in proximity to such sites are more affordable to low-income and minority populations. Do the benefits of homeonwer outweigh the potential health risks?

One may respond that it's "unfair" or "unjust" for anyone to live near such sites. But aren't fairness and justice best determined by those with knowledge of place and circumstance?

Once again, good points. In fact, we have an example right here where I live, in Summit County, where an area once identified as a potential Superfund site was redeveloped for affordable, deed-restricted locals' housing, and the people who live there are thrilled, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. No significant human health risks were associated with the site, by the way, and a remediation project for the tainted water from the abandoned mines is in the works. But I think the information presented at the conference should spur more discussion about the way the environmental goods and bads are distributed in our region in the bigger picture. That means not just census data and EPA toxic release data, but more holistically. What about housing near major highways? Some European studies have suggested health impacts from the low-level but chronic impacts associated with heavy traffic. What about access to environmental information and participation in the political process of distributing environmental goods? Seems like there is plenty of reason to start looking hard for health risks associated with the patterns that have been identified. And I'm afraid that simply pointing to the need for more site-specific context, while valid, just deflects from the main questions raised by the presentations.