Environmental Justice: Who Bears Environmental Burdens?
Environmental justice (EJ) is the principle that all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, deserve equal protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making processes that affect their environment. The environmental justice movement emerged from civil rights activism in the 1980s when researchers and communities began documenting a disturbing pattern: hazardous waste facilities, industrial polluters, toxic Superfund sites, and other locally unwanted land uses were disproportionately sited in or near communities of color and low-income communities.
The landmark 1987 study 'Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States' by the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice was among the first systematic analyses of this pattern. It found that race was the most significant variable in predicting proximity to commercial hazardous waste facilities — more significant than income. Subsequent research has consistently replicated these findings: communities of color and low-income communities face higher air pollution exposure, greater proximity to industrial facilities and waste sites, more limited access to clean water, and greater exposure to contaminated brownfield sites.
Bullard's 1990 book 'Dumping in Dixie' documented how African American communities in the South systematically bore the worst environmental burdens of industrialization — industrial facilities, landfills, and sewage treatment plants were concentrated in their neighborhoods while white communities successfully used political influence to keep unwanted facilities out. This 'Not in My Backyard' (NIMBY) phenomenon effectively shifted burdens onto communities with less political power.
Environmental justice operates at the intersection of environmental law, civil rights law, and public health. EJ advocates have used Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs) to challenge environmental permitting decisions, arguing that the disparate impact of siting decisions on communities of color violates civil rights law. This legal avenue has had limited success in courts following the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, which held that Title VI does not create a private right of action for disparate impact claims.