Environmental Justice: Racial Gerrymandering for Environmental Siting Decisions
By Lawrence J. Straw, Jr.
INTRODUCTION
The United States system of government is based on the premise that elected legislators are responsible for establishing societal policies, goals, and objectives. Statutes enacted after public debate determine which activities should be prohibited, which should be promoted, and what should or should not receive government protection. Executive branch officials implement these legislatively-determined policies, goals, and objectives through regulations and standards. In the environmental arena, public hearings and studies determine safety, emissions, and health standards. Permitting processes provide for public participation and seek to assure that conduct and projects do not violate announced standards.
This costly and time consuming system is intended to produce certainty. If a person wishes to engage in a particular type of conduct, that person has only to look to legislative and administrative pronouncements to ascertain whether the proposed conduct is allowed and, if so, under what circumstances. For instance, if a person wishes to construct an industrial facility, examination of the applicable building codes, zoning laws, and emissions and safety standards should provide a basis for determining whether the proposed facility can be constructed at the desired location.
The environmental justice movement departs significantly from this system. Environmental justice advocates urge considerations which often clash with legislatively-mandated environmental policies, priorities, and requirements. These considerations are sometimes ad hoc and are not always clearly articulated. If these considerations are imposed on the decision-making process, knowledge of and adherence to the published rules will no longer guarantee the acceptability of a particular project. By undermining certainty, these ambiguous requirements will frustrate legislatively-determined environmental, health, and safety objectives and increase costs, thus inhibiting the commitment of resources in the private sector.
The United States system of government is based on the premise that elected legislators are responsible for establishing societal policies, goals, and objectives. Statutes enacted after public debate determine which activities should be prohibited, which should be promoted, and what should or should not receive government protection. Executive branch officials implement these legislatively-determined policies, goals, and objectives through regulations and standards. In the environmental arena, public hearings and studies determine safety, emissions, and health standards. Permitting processes provide for public participation and seek to assure that conduct and projects do not violate announced standards.
This costly and time consuming system is intended to produce certainty. If a person wishes to engage in a particular type of conduct, that person has only to look to legislative and administrative pronouncements to ascertain whether the proposed conduct is allowed and, if so, under what circumstances. For instance, if a person wishes to construct an industrial facility, examination of the applicable building codes, zoning laws, and emissions and safety standards should provide a basis for determining whether the proposed facility can be constructed at the desired location.
The environmental justice movement departs significantly from this system. Environmental justice advocates urge considerations which often clash with legislatively-mandated environmental policies, priorities, and requirements. These considerations are sometimes ad hoc and are not always clearly articulated. If these considerations are imposed on the decision-making process, knowledge of and adherence to the published rules will no longer guarantee the acceptability of a particular project. By undermining certainty, these ambiguous requirements will frustrate legislatively-determined environmental, health, and safety objectives and increase costs, thus inhibiting the commitment of resources in the private sector.