Not in My Backyard: Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI as Tools for Achieving Environmental Justice
Chapter 1
Introduction
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) conducted environmental justice hearings in January and February 2002, which included advocates, researchers and scientists, community representatives, business and industry representatives, policy analysts, academics, and officials from four federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation.[1] The Commission held the hearings to learn what progress, if any, the federal government has made in identifying and appropriately addressing the role of race in environmental decision-making and to what extent agencies are implementing Executive Order 12,898. Fortunately, the Commission is pleased to learn that there has been much progress since its June 1971 hearing during which EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus saw no connection between the agency s regulatory role and nondiscrimination aims.[2]
During the two days of testimony in 2002, the Commission observed that there have been successes. Additional challenges, however, were also revealed. The successes, though somewhat limited, are discussed first. The signing of Executive Order 12,898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, in 1994 by President Clinton, incorporating environmental justice principles into the work of all federal agencies, is generally viewed as a positive step toward involving communities in environmental decision-making and protecting the health of minority and low-income communities.[3] Other successes include growing community activism on environmental justice issues; greater community awareness of environmental hazards and adverse human health risks; and increased skill at using available judicial and administrative avenues to challenge siting, permitting, and other decisions resulting in a disproportionate and adverse environmental and human health impact. A siting decision is a decision to locate a facility in a particular place or community, while a permitting decision governs under what environmental restrictions or regulations a facility must operate.[4] State and local authorities make the majority of the siting and permitting decisions challenged in the environmental justice context, and the decision-making procedures vary from state to state. The procedures also vary depending on the type of facility or project being constructed.
Claims of discrimination by state and local authorities are often handled administratively under federal agency Title VI regulations prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs and activities.[5] In fact, much of the increased community activism noted above, and many of the current tools available to communities, is related to agency Title VI enforcement and the implementation of Executive Order 12,898.
The Executive Order, the first significant success in the area of federal implementation of environmental justice principles, requires federal agencies to collect data on the health and environmental impact of their programs and activities on minority populations and low-income populations and to develop policies to achieve environmental justice.[6] Federal agencies are also required to ensure that their funding recipients comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by conducting their programs and implementing policies in a nondiscriminatory manner.[7] Unlike Title VI, Executive Order 12,898 does not create legally enforceable rights or obligations.[8] The order specifically requires that federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments, including Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation, make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by evaluating the effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.[9]
Under the Executive Order, each federal agency is required to develop an agencywide environmental justice strategy that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, or activities on minority populations and low-income populations. [10] Agencies are also required to target programs and policies for revision in order to promote health, improve research and data collection, ensure public participation, and track environmental resources consumption patterns.[11] The last mandate is especially useful to populations engaging in subsistence hunting and fishing.
The Executive Order also establishes the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG) composed of agency representatives.[12] The IWG is convened by the EPA administrator and includes the heads of 11 departments/agencies and several White House offices. These include EPA; the Departments of Justice, Defense, Energy, Labor, Interior, Transportation, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Health and Human Services; the Council on Environmental Quality; the Office of Management and Budget; the Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Domestic Policy Council; and the Council of Economic Advisors.
The IWG established eight task forces to concentrate on areas that required the most interagency coordination. These areas include research and health, outreach, data, enforcement and compliance, implementation, Native Americans, guidance, and interagency projects. Each task force is chaired by two agencies with representation from each of the participating agencies.[13] The work of the IWG is discussed later in this report.
Under the Executive Order, former Clinton administration EPA Administrator Carol Browner created interagency working groups, established demonstration projects, and issued the Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits, and federal agencies became increasingly accountable to communities through the Title VI administrative process and public participation in the environmental decision-making process.
In August 2001, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman in the Bush administration, who resigned as administrator in June 2003, affirmed the administration's commitment to ensuring environmental justice and the importance of Executive Order 12,898.[14] Administrator Whitman continued efforts to investigate and dispose of a backlog of Title VI complaints, and oversaw the issuance of Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised Investigation Guidance) and Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance).[15] Current EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt, like former EPA Administrators Browner and Whitman, should reaffirm the federal government's commitment to environmental policies that ensure communities of color and poor communities are not disproportionately burdened with toxic facilities, waste sites, landfills, noise,[16] lead paint, diesel emissions, noxious odors, and other environmental hazards. This commitment could be reflected in several ways, including:
Creating a formal policy on cumulative risk that considers social, economic, and behavioral factors.
Creating a presumption that exposure to multiple hazards has an adverse health impact.
Establishing measurable goals and outcomes for environmental justice programs and activities to ensure that enforcement efforts under Title VI and Executive Order 12,898 are effective.
The Commission notes that, while the Executive Order is considered a success by communities and environmental advocates, business and industry contend that environmental justice and Title VI ultimately work to the economic disadvantage of communities of color and poor communities. Critics assert that environmental justice makes industry reluctant to locate in these communities. The bulk of the data, however, is contrary to this claim.
Critics also argue that environmental justice is not an appropriate or effective way to address health and quality of life issues in minority and poor communities.[17] They propose that traditional environmental enforcement is a better vehicle for these concerns.[18] Specifically, critics assert that environmental justice cannot address health concerns in minority and poor communities because market forces, not racism, drive siting and permitting decisions. As will be discussed in the next chapter, the market dynamics theory has not been proved and the evidence is that few jobs are actually created or provided to the neighborhoods surrounding these facilities.
The second environmental justice success noted by the Commission, that communities are becoming more proactive in defending their quality of life and health against hazardous waste and other pollutants, is tempered by the fact that these communities often lack ready access to scientific and technical data. As a result, environmental groups are advocating for more detailed studies analyzing the varieties and levels of exposure to environmental hazards and more technical assistance grants. These groups are making effective use of scientific and technical data, when it is made available. When discussing studies on health risks and outcomes, the Commission emphasizes to federal agencies that these studies must include diverse segments of the population as required by the Executive Order.[19] The traditional middle-aged, white male, of average weight model should not be the only model for these studies.
Just as diverse population groups should be included in scientific studies, the goal of protecting human health is more effectively reached when communities are involved in research and data collection. Depending on the environmental issues involved, there are advocates who are as familiar with the issues and scientific data as anyone in the public.[20] For example, on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where communities are adversely affected by Shore's poultry industry, advocates collected applicable and useful data on the types and levels of environmental exposures experienced by the community.[21]
While research and data collection are central to fully implementing the Executive Order and ensuring that public health is protected, it has been asserted that the research that exists on exposures and health impact is tainted by politics and may be unreliable. This argument cannot be supported by the facts. Any scientific study that withstands an appropriate peer review process is inherently shielded from the effects of bias.[22] Politics, however, taints how individuals use data. In the 1970s, research on the effect of lead exposure on children's intelligence became controversial only as a result of how some individuals with political agendas interpreted the findings. Nonetheless, the data linking lead to retarded mental development was scientifically sound and unbiased.[23]
The Commission identified a third success, that communities are becoming increasingly skilled at using the legal and administrative processes to seek recourse and remedies. This is even more astounding since it comes despite obstacles such as the lack of appropriate scientific data, pockets of resistance by business and industry, and increasingly limited access to the courts. The Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval prohibits private individuals or organizations from filing suits alleging disparate impact discrimination under 602 of Title VI. Disparate impact discrimination is unintentional discrimination that adversely affects racial groups or members of other protected classes.[24] The Court's decision in Sandoval effectively requires communities to establish intentional discrimination.[25] Sandoval has forced more communities to look to agency regulations under Title VI for recourse and remedy for this type of environmental justice complaint.[26]
Because of this increased emphasis on administrative remedies, the Commission heard a great deal about EPA's Title VI guidance and process during its hearings. EPA issued its Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Interim Guidance) in 1998 to provide a mechanism for processing Title VI complaints and guidance for analyzing environmental disparate impact allegations.[27] Issuing the Interim Guidance was also consistent with goals of Executive Order 12,898.[28] On June 27, 2000, the agency's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published the Draft Revised Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised Investigation Guidance) and the Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance) to further refine its Interim Guidance.[29]
In 2002, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and many other environmental groups, advocates, and policy organizations submitted comments on the Draft Revised Investigation Guidance. Some of the most common comments submitted include the following:
The guidance is discretionary and, therefore, does not create any rights or enforceable obligations.
The guidance unnecessarily limits the determination of Title VI and EPA violations to those matters within the recipients authority. (However, recipients, though not the direct cause of a pollutant/hazard, may be the proximate cause.)
It provides that Title VI is inapplicable to EPA actions, including EPA's issuance of permits, because it only applies to the programs and activities of recipients of federal financial assistance.
Informal resolution, through alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is weighted in favor of permitting and undermines Title VI enforcement because, once granted, permits are seldom revoked.
OCR can rely on a recipient's analysis even if that analysis concludes no adverse disparate analysis exists . . . in a finding that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI and EPA's regulations. Only if the analysis contains significant deficiencies will OCR not rely on it.
Compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality standards creates a presumption of no adverse impact.
The guidance encourages area-specific agreements through which recipients identify geographic areas where adverse disparate impacts may exist and enter into agreements with affected residents and stakeholders to eliminate or reduce, to the extent required by Title VI, adverse disparate impacts. If a complaint is filed relating to the area-specific agreement, OCR may rely upon the agreement, unless the allegation is that the agreement was not properly implemented. An independent investigation is not mandated.
The complaint processing timeline is not realistic.
Complainants have no right to appeal.[30]
Comments by industry reflect a view that Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI impose unnecessary restrictions on industry, especially in the permitting process.[31] Industry comments also reflect the views that industry is disadvantaged by the length of the Title VI complaint process, and what can be described as the federal government's second-guessing of state permitting decisions.[32]
Industry also describes a mismatch between the efforts and timetables needed to resolve community environmental justice concerns and the needs of business.[33] Business needs involve competition, budget cycles, shareholder profit expectations, and sufficient certainty to secure financing. [34] Industry claims that the Title VI process does not accommodate these time-sensitive events.
With this input from its stakeholders, EPA is currently working on changes to its Draft Revised Investigation Guidance, and information learned by the agency's Title VI Task Force and Office of Civil Rights from the processing of EPA's backlog of complaints should be useful in this effort. It is observed, however, that EPA has yet to sustain a single Title VI complaint. EPA expects to complete this guidance by early FY 2004.
EPA is also revising its Draft Recipient Guidance, and community and advocacy groups have commented that the guidance:
Provides few recommendations for making public participation in environmental decision-making meaningful, interactive, and inclusive.
Reflects a lack of recognition that public participation, alone, does not guarantee a fair or nondiscriminatory outcome.
Does not address and eliminate disparities in legal and technical expertise between recipients and members of affected communities.
Does not acknowledge and address cultural and social barriers that hinder communities from participating in the process.
EPA should incorporate these comments into the revisions to its Draft Recipient Guidance, which is expected to be released in early FY 2004.
Receiving a remedy under agency Title VI regulations is far from certain. In fact, agencies seldom, if ever, revoke a permit or withhold money from the recipients of federal funding for violating Title VI.[35] Advocates see additional obstacles to successfully challenging environmental decisions administratively; specifically, federal agency regulations and guidance that fail to consider the totality of a community's exposure risks and the fact that damages cannot be awarded.[36] Agency regulations that fail to use cumulative risk assessments that consider all environmental and social factors, and the absence of a presumption that multiple exposures have an adverse health impact are serious shortcomings in the administrative process.[37]
While there has been some success in moving toward achieving environmental justice, the Commission also recognizes ongoing challenges, specifically that:
Federal agencies have failed to incorporate environmental justice into their core missions.
Federal agencies have not established accountability and performance outcomes for programs and activities.
A commitment to environmental justice issues is often lacking from agency leadership.
These challenges are briefly discussed here. First, how federal agencies incorporate environmental justice into their programs and other activities varies, as does the extent to which the agencies have incorporated Executive Order 12,898 into their core missions. The Commission finds that to make real and lasting changes, agencies must integrate environmental justice into the core design of their programs, and rigorously evaluate the success of these programs in meeting their aims. Federal agencies must increase and improve public participation in information gathering and dissemination, and especially in the decision-making process.[38] Current efforts by HUD and EPA include, for example, publishing materials in languages other than English.[39] While all four agencies appearing before the Commission have Web pages that address environmental justice, navigating to these pages is difficult.
Second, the Commission finds that while agencies are implementing environmental justice programs, there is a lack of critical assessment of those programs.[40] Most significantly for purposes of this report, none of these agencies report any comprehensive assessments of their environmental justice activities. This appears to be particularly true for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD has not established outcome expectations or goals for its environmental justice activities and no central mechanism for communicating goals and expectations to staff and managers other than its public Web site.[41] The Department of the Interior, like HUD, also lacks program goals and expectations. EPA has yet to implement accountability measures following the 2001 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report recommending such measures as a way of improving agency implementation of environmental justice.[42] In January 2002, however, EPA did create an Accountability Workgroup to explore this, and other, environmental justice recommendations by NAPA.[43]
Without assessments, it is difficult to determine how well agencies are incorporating the Executive Order into their missions[44] and the effectiveness of their environmental justice initiatives in reducing health and environmental concerns for affected communities. Agencies should also identify disproportionately and adversely affected communities and create explicit goals for reducing risks in these communities.[45] These communities should be given priority attention.[46]
Third, the Commission believes that when assessing accountability, clear leadership and direction from agency heads are important in dispelling an agency culture that could be perceived as a barrier to environmental justice. Attention at the highest levels is important in implementing the goals, and measuring the effectiveness, of the Executive Order.[47] While EPA has support from its top leadership, it has been difficult for the agency to change its culture and attitudes about environmental justice. EPA has been described as change-resistant; therefore, top-down leadership is even more important to integrating environmental justice into the agency's work.[48] The top leadership at the Departments of Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation has not made the same visible commitment to environmental justice that EPA has demonstrated.
The failure of the four agencies reviewed by the Commission to fully incorporate environmental justice into agency core missions, the absence of accountability and critical assessments for environmental justice programs and activities, and the lack of top-down leadership on environmental justice issues result in the Commission finding that federal agencies have not yet fully implemented Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI in the environmental decision-making context.
Environmental Justice Actions Since Executive Order 12,898
Because of the difficulties communities have in obtaining legal and agency administrative relief, environmental advocates are seeking to codify the principles of environmental justice and to ensure that sufficient funding exists for environmental programs that benefit communities of color and low-income communities. Consequently, communities and environmental advocates have put forth the following proposals:
The passage of a Civil Rights Restoration Act.
The passage of an Environmental Justice Act.
The restoration of the polluter pays tax for environmental cleanup under Superfund.[49]
Advocates have called for a Civil Rights Restoration Act to codify their ability to pursue disparate impact discrimination cases under Title VI; however, there has been no legislative action on a restoration bill.
The passage of an Environmental Justice Act that would allow communities to more easily demonstrate that they are overburdened by environmental exposures and hazards would provide specific remedies or relief not created by Executive Order 12,898, and would ensure that the protections made possible by the Executive Order could not be easily undone by future administrations.[50] There has been some interest in this approach. In May 2003, Representatives Mark Udall of Colorado and Hilda Solis of California introduced the Environmental Justice Act of 2003 (H.R. 2200) to codify and expand Executive Order 12,898.[51] Much of the proposed legislation is identical to the Executive Order. Generally, the bill provides the following:
Requires federal agencies to include achieving environmental justice in their missions through identifying and addressing any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their activities on minority and low-income communities.
Establishes a new Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice.
Directs that each federal agency develop an agencywide environmental justice strategy.
Establishes the Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee.
Requires that the administrator of EPA collect and analyze data assessing environmental and human health risks borne by population identified by race, national origin, and income.
Like the Executive Order, the bill requires that agencies develop an agencywide environmental justice strategy. The proposed legislation, however, does not mandate a strict timeline for producing these strategies and their revisions, as required by the Executive Order.
A Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, essentially codifying the current National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, is proposed.[52] The advisory committee is to provide advice and recommendations to EPA and the Working Group on a range of environmental justice issues, including:
Developing a framework for integrating socioeconomic programs into EPA's strategic planning on environmental justice.
Measuring and evaluating agencies progress in developing and implementing environmental justice strategies.
Carrying out agencies existing and future data collection efforts and the conduct of analyses that support environmental justice programs.
Developing, facilitating, and conducting reviews of federal agencies scientific research and demonstration projects.
Improving how EPA communicates with other agencies, state and local governments, tribes, environmental justice leaders, interest groups, and the public.
Advising on EPA's administration of grant programs relating to environmental justice assistance.
Conducting environmental justice outreach activities.
The advisory committee shall be composed of 25 members appointed by the President, with representatives from the community, industry, academia, state and local governments, federally recognized tribes, indigenous groups, and nongovernmental and environmental groups.
The bill does, however, go beyond the Executive Order in a few instances:
It expands reporting and public participation requirements by mandating that each analysis of the environmental effects of federal actions required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) include an analysis of the effects of those actions on human health, as well as any economic and social effects.[53]
It requires agencies to provide opportunities for affected communities in the NEPA process.[54]
It abolishes the current Interagency Working Group and constitutes an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice that would provide guidance to federal agencies on criteria for identifying disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental effects on minority and low-income communities, and Native American populations; assist in coordinating research being conducted by various federal agencies; assist in coordinating data collection, maintenance, and analyses; examine existing data and studies on environmental justice; develop interagency model projects on environmental justice; hold public meetings and actively seek meaningful public participation; and coordinate environmental justice efforts involving federally recognized tribes.[55]
It authorizes the new working group to receive and, in appropriate instances, conduct inquiries into complaints regarding environmental justice and implementation of the act by the federal agencies.[56]
It is worth noting that the Executive Order does not have a provision dealing with investigating complaints. It is, therefore, unclear, what is contemplated by this new responsibility concerning complaints and what power the working group would have to remedy environmental justice complaints.
Finally, it appears that inadequate funding prevents many agencies from meeting their environmental justice obligations. The agencies have few resources committed full time to environmental justice issues.[57] Low staffing levels could indicate a lack of funding for environmental justice issues, or equally important, the failure of the agencies to make these issues a priority. At the Department of the Interior, for example, environmental justice is viewed by most components as collateral duty with little full-time staff and no devoted funding for environmental justice activities.[58]
Conclusion
This report reviews how well four federal agencies are implementing Executive Order 12,898 and their Title VI responsibilities in the context of environmental decision-making. Generally, agencies can successfully implement the order through three steps: first, ensuring that their programs which substantially affect human health and the environment do not discriminate and that their state and local funding recipients do not discriminate; second, providing minority and low-income communities access to information on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or the environment, regulations, and enforcement; and third, collecting and analyzing research and data on the environmental, human health, economic, and social effects of their actions on minority and low-income communities.[59]
This report, therefore, examines to what extent EPA and the Departments of Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation have addressed these three goals through:
Using Title VI nondiscrimination regulations to enforce the principles of environmental justice.
Creating opportunities for meaningful public participation in the environmental decision-making process and the use of alternative dispute resolution.
Conducting scientific research and collecting data on human health impacts and the distribution of environmental risks and hazards, and disseminating scientific information and data to the public and affected communities.
Creating evaluation criteria, establishing accountability and performance measures for environmental justice programs, and providing top-down agency leadership on environmental justice issues.
Chapter 2 defines environmental justice and identifies key issues such as the role of race and poverty in environmental decision-making, provides examples of several minority and poor communities adversely affected by environmental decision-making, and reviews the health issues related to the disproportionate placement of facilities in these communities. Chapter 2 also discusses whether environmental justice inhibits economic opportunity in communities of color and low-income communities, and the impact of recent changes in the Superfund program that may hinder environmental cleanup efforts in these communities.
Chapter 3 covers the use of Title VI nondiscrimination regulations as an environmental justice tool and how agencies can improve their Title VI programs. Chapter 4 gives an overview of the impact of Alexander v. Sandoval, a Supreme Court decision prohibiting private rights of action for disparate impact claims under Title VI. The decision has already placed greater importance on federal administrative Title VI regulations and enforcement, as well as brought more attention to the role state and local authorities play in environmental decision-making and what steps can be taken at these levels to bring about environmental fairness.
Chapter 5 assesses public participation in environmental decision-making and the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve conflicts and complaints. Chapter 6 discusses the need for federal agencies to collect data and conduct scientific research to more specifically identify human health and environmental risks created by concentrating waste and other facilities in communities of color and low-income communities, and how agencies technical assistance grants are used by communities and advocates.
Chapter 7 reviews whether there is sufficient agency accountability and evaluation of environmental justice programs and activities. Without accountability and program evaluation, little progress will be made toward achieving environmental justice.
At the end of each chapter are specific recommendations for action. Chapter 8 is a compilation of the recommendations made by the Commission throughout the report.
[1] As a part of its hearing process, the Commission issued subpoenas for documents, submitted written interrogatories to four federal agencies, received public comments, and conducted interviews and research.
This report makes reference to activities of the U.S. Coast Guard as a part of the Department of Transportation. The Commission notes that since its hearing the U.S. Coast Guard has been incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security.
[2] William D. Ruckelshaus, administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Washington DC, June 14 17, 1971, transcript, pp. 146 57.
[3] See generally Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (1995), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C. 4321 (1994 & Supp. VI 1998) (hereafter cited as Exec. Order No. 12,898).
[4] Michael B. Gerrard, ed., The Law of Environmental Justice: Theories and Procedures to Address Disproportionate Risks, Stopping and Building New Facilities, by Michael B. Gerrard (Chicago: ABA Publishing, 1999), pp. 469 77.
[5] Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2000d 2000d-7 (1994).
[6] Exec. Order No. 12,898, 1-101, 3-3. The Council on Environmental Quality defines low-income populations based on the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau's Current Population Reports. Minority is defined as anyone who is American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, black (non-Hispanic origin), or Hispanic. Minority populations are identified where the minority population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population. Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 1997, Appendix A, Guidance for Federal Agencies on Key Terms in Executive Order 12898, p. 25. See, e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Response to the Commission's Interrogatory Question 43, April 2002 (hereafter cited as EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question); U.S. Department of Transportation, Response to the Commission's Interrogatory Question 33, April 2002; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Response to the Commission's Interrogatory Question 43, April 2002 (hereafter cited as HUD, Response to Interrogatory Question). The Commission was specifically interested in the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI) relationship and consultation with Native American tribes on environmental issues. Accordingly, DOI was not requested to define minority populations or low-income populations. In this report, the terms minority, minority populations, and communities of color are synonymous and used interchangeably.
[7] Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d 2000d-7.
[8] See generally Exec. Order No. 12,898.
[9] Id. 1-101, 1-104, 2-2.
[10] Id. 1-103.
[11] Id. 4-401.
[12] Id. 1-102.
[13] Id. 1-103.
[14] Christine Todd Whitman, administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, memorandum to Assistant Administrators et al., EPA's Commitment to Environmental Justice, Aug. 9, 2001; Linda Fisher, deputy administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Washington, DC, Feb. 8, 2002, official transcript, p. 46 (hereafter cited as February Hearing Transcript).
[15] Linda Fisher, deputy administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, pp. 45 46; Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised Investigation Guidance), 65 Fed. Reg. 39,650 (June 27, 2000).
[16] Briggitta Berglund et al., eds., Guidelines for Community Noise (World Health Organization, 1999), pp. 39 54 (noise is an increasing public health problem related to adverse health effects such as hearing loss; decreased speech comprehension; sleep disturbances; cardiovascular and psycho-physiologic problems; mental health problems, including irritability, anxiety, and neurosis; performance reduction; annoyance responses; and adverse social behavior); Briggitta Berglund and Thomas Lindvall, eds., Community Noise (World Health Organization, 1995), <http://www.who.int/peh/noise/Noiseold. html> (last accessed July 16, 2003); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Health Studies: Noise, <http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/noise/> (last accessed July 16, 2003).
[17] Christopher H. Foreman, professor, University of Maryland, testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Washington, DC, Jan. 11, 2002, official transcript, pp. 68, 70 (hereafter cited as January Hearing Transcript).
[18] Ibid., p. 69.
[19] Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3-302(a).
[20] Dr. John Groopman, program director and chairman of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences Toxicological Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, telephone interview, Apr. 11, 2002 (hereafter cited as Groopman interview).
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid. H. Patricia Hynes, professor, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, telephone interview, Apr. 4, 2002.
[23] Groopman interview.
[24] A disparate impact discrimination theory allows a practice or policy that is race neutral on its face to be found to be discriminatory in practice, even in the absence of proof of intent to discriminate. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 568 (1974).
[25] Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (no private right of action to enforce disparate impact regulations under Title VI).
[26] Michael B. Gerrard, ed., The Law of Environmental Justice: Theories and Procedures to Address Disproportionate Risks, Title VI, by Bradford C. Mank (Chicago: ABA Publishing, 1999), p. 25 (hereafter cited as Mank, Title VI ).
[27] Karen Higginbotham, director, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, p. 66.
[28] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits, February 1998, <http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/interim.pdf> (last accessed Sept. 3, 2003) (hereafter cited as EPA, Interim Guidance); June M. Lyle, Reactions to EPA's Interim Guidance: The Growing Battle for Control over Environmental Justice Decisionmaking, 75 Ind. L.J. 687, 696 (2000) (hereafter cited as Lyle, Reactions to EPA's Interim Guidance).
[29] 65 Fed. Reg. 39,650 (June 27, 2000); Karen Higginbotham, director, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, pp. 66 67.
[30] See, e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments Received on the Title VI Draft Guidance Documents : Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, letter, Aug. 28, 2000; Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment, letter, Aug. 26, 2000; Institute for Public Representation, letter, Aug. 28, 2000; National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, letter, Aug. 26, 2000; Sierra Club Committee on Environmental Justice, letter, Aug. 28, 2000; Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, letter, Aug. 28, 2000, <http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/t6guidcom.htm> (last accessed July 1, 2003).
[31] Sue Briggum, director of environmental affairs, Waste Management, Inc., Business Perspective on Environmental Justice, written statement delivered to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Feb. 8, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as Briggum, written statement).
[32] See, e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments Received on the Title VI Draft Guidance Documents : Louisiana Mid-Continental Oil and Gas Association, letter, Aug. 28, 2000; American Petroleum Institute, letter, Aug. 28, 2000; Shintech, Inc., letter, Aug. 25, 2000; Associated Builders and Contractors, letter (undated); American Road and Transportation Builders Association, letter, Aug. 28, 2000, <http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/t6guidcom.htm> (last accessed July 1, 2003).
[33] Sue Briggum, director of environmental affairs, Waste Management, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 170.
[34] Briggum, written statement, p. 2; Michael Steinberg, counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, pp. 27 28.
[35] Richard Lazarus, John Carrol Research Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, pp. 35 36; Michael B. Gerrard, Esq., Arnold & Porter, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 72; Mank, Title VI, pp. 26, 28; 40 C.F.R. 7.130 (2002) (denial, annulment, suspension, or termination of assistance to noncompliant funding recipients allowed by EPA). See also EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question 31 (agency allowed to deny, annul, suspend or terminate assistance to noncompliant funding recipients).
[36] 40 C.F.R. 7.130(a).
[37] Dr. Robert Bullard, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, telephone interview, Apr. 10, 2002 (hereafter cited as Bullard interview).
[38] Ibid.
[39]
Ibid.
[40] Denis Binder et al., A Survey of Federal Agency Response to President Clinton's Executive Order No. 12898 on Environmental Justice, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 11139 (2001) (hereafter cited as Binder et al., Federal Agency Response to President Clinton's Executive Order No. 12898).
[41] HUD, Responses to Interrogatory Questions 17 19.
[42] EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question 15.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Binder et al., A Survey of Federal Agency Response to Executive Order 12898, p. 11135. For example, while EPA has evaluated grant programs, GAO recently criticized EPA for failing to require grant recipients to report adequate information about the success of Brownfields projects. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), Environmental Justice Small Grants Program: Emerging Tools for Local Problem Solving, 1999. See also U.S. General Accounting Office, Brownfields: Information on the Programs of EPA and Selected Sites, 2001.
[45] National Academy of Public Administration, Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities Is Integral to the Agency's Mission, December 2001, pp. 28, 56 (hereafter cited as NAPA, Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting).
[46] Ibid., p. 45.
[47] Binder et al., A Survey of Federal Agency Response to Executive Order 12898, p. 11135. See also NAPA, Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting, pp. 17, 26 27.
[48] NAPA, Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting, pp. 26 27.
[49] Superfund is a hazardous waste site cleanup program that requires the responsible polluting parties to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated areas. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 9675 (1994).
[50] Bullard interview.
[51] This bill was introduced in October 2002 as H.R. 5637, 107th Cong. (2002) and reintroduced on May 21, 2003, as H.R. 2200, 108th Cong. (2003).
[52] Environmental Justice Act of 2003, H.R. 2200, 108th Cong. 6(b)(1) (7) (2003).
[53] Id. 3(c)(1).
[54] Id. 3(c)(3).
[55] Id. 4(b)(1) (8).
[56] Id. 4(c)(2).
[57] For example, while every region of EPA has its own office of environmental justice or a primary contact for environmental justice activities, at HUD, one person spends approximately 20 percent of his time on environmental justice policy, training, and public affairs in the Office of Community Viability, part of the Community Planning and Development Office. Binder et al., A Survey of Federal Agency Response to President Clinton s Executive Order No. 12898, p. 11139. In addition, as part of the NEPA process, HUD has approximately 20 staff members responsible for completing the environmental reviews, who devote about 5 percent of their time on the environmental justice concerns of the projects under review. In the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, five to six staff members spend 20 percent of their time on environmental justice working on complaints brought under Title VI or VIII. Ibid.
[58] U.S. Department of the Interior, Responses to the Commission s Interrogatory Questions 7 and 8, May 2002.
[59] Presidential Memorandum Accompanying Executive Order 12,898, 30 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 279, 280 (Feb. 11, 1994).