Category: Backyard Talk

By: Julia Weil, Community Organizing Intern
As we have seen countless times, hazardous contamination is disproportionately present in areas where more minority and low-income people live. Though this has been both protested at specific sites and researched on a larger scale for many years, it not only continues, but the companies responsible both refuse to take responsibility and even deny the environmental racism that drives their decision-making.
The process of moving potential contaminating facilities out of white neighborhoods and into majority minority neighborhoods can be seen in the case of Southside Recycling, owned by Reserve Management Group, in Chicago.  Formerly General Iron, the scrap metal shredding facility was proposed to move out of Lincoln Park, a wealthier and whiter area of Chicago, and into the already environmentally over-burdened Southeast Side, in an area where the majority of residents are Latino.
In Lincoln Park, before the proposed location change, the General Iron facility was protested by residents due to the noise, smell, and particulate matter, and a notice of violation was issued due to emissions.  The new company name doesn’t change the impact that the metal shredding facility could have on surrounding communities.
Recognizing the sickeningly common narrative continued by the location change, local activists on the Southeast Side conducted several protests and participated in a hunger strike. The Southeast Side of Chicago has a long history of environmental racism and pollution, driven by zoning laws. In fact, over just the past 7 years, as many as 75 facilities in that area were inspected for “allegedly violating the Clean Air Act.”
However, the owners of Southside Recycling continue to defend their actions, asserting that this move isn’t due to environmental racism and the new facility will be “environmentally conscious.” The owners cite the greater area of the plot available on the Southeast Side as being protective, though an elementary school and a high school sit just a half mile from the new site, and the area in which they planned to relocate already suffers from a higher level of contamination.
The planned relocation resulted in a civil rights lawsuit being filed against General Iron, and has attracted the attention of the EPA. Michael Regan, the EPA’s 16^th Administrator, has declared that the Southeast Side of Chicago suffers from environmental injustice, and has asked that the city delay the issuing of a permit for this facility. Hopefully, this is a first step towards halting development of the facility altogether in this location, followed by more protective litigation for over-burdened communities.
Photo Credit: Antonio Lopez

By: Tony Aguilar, Organizing Intern
In constructing his cabinet, President Biden appointed Deb Haaland, a Native American woman and former U.S. representative from New Mexico to be the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior manages America’s natural resources and Native American relations in Bureaus such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Since Haaland’s confirmation, she has put together a diverse team in the DOI, including other Native American additions like Lawrence Roberts and Heidi Todacheene. Since the colonization of America, Indigenous voices have only been silenced, especially when it came to issues like land management. The appointment of Deb Halaand seems to be a step in the right direction in reversing the contentious history between the American Government and Indigenous communities. 
Before America’s colonization, Indigenous peoples practiced an engagement with nature that was full of reverence and respect for Earth’s natural resources. Many Indigenous cultures view our resources as entities themselves that we have familial relationships with, implying a sense of responsibility to take care of things like water and soil. This attitude toward the natural world is apparent in the way that Indegenous peoples built societies that sustained themselves for generations before Western colonization without depleting the Earth’s resources. Frequent relocation, industrialization, and other land rights infringements have not only kept Indigenous peoples from practicing the same level of sustainability of their ancestors, it has also disproportionately threatened or damaged many of the natural resources that surround or belong to Indigenous lands.  
The United States has yet to achieve a level of sustainability that Indigenous communities once had, but a restructuring of Native American affairs that Deb Haaland is committed to, may allow Indigenous communities the sovereignty and self-determination to keep pollution out of their communities and go back to the practices that built and sustained their communities for so many generations before them. These communities may then even serve as an example to the rest of America of what sustainability really means.
 As a 35th generation New Mexican and member of the Pueblo of Laguna (a Native American tribe in west-central New Mexico), Haaland has spent her career in politics fighting for environmental justice as well as many other Native American Issues. During her time in the House of Representatives, Haaland served as vice chair of the Committee on Natural Resources and also co-sponsored the Environmental Justice for All Act. As the Secretary of the Department of Interior, Haaland understands that Native American communities, along with communities of color more generally, take on most of the burden when it comes to environmental problems and has made it a point to ensure that these communities are being helped. Coming from such a community herself, Haaland serves as a beam of hope to all of the communities that suffer from environmental injustice, especially Native American communities that have not only lost their land, but also much of their culture to colonial industrialization. 
 
Photo credits: United States Department of the Interior

By: Kristen Millstein, Communications Intern
After several months of working on the Make Polluters Pay campaign with CHEJ, hearing that President Biden’s infrastructure bill included a Polluters Pay Tax felt like a breath of fresh air. The Polluters Pay Tax, which expired in 1995, funded the Superfund program and was used to clean up toxic waste sites when the responsible party could not be identified or was unable to pay. Since then, money to clean up toxic sites has come from general tax revenue. These funds are not sufficient, and they force ordinary taxpayers to pay for the mess corporate polluters made. The number of cleanups has steadily declined due to a lack of funding and the backlog of toxic sites has increased. Efforts by environmental groups and lawmakers to reinstate this tax have failed thus far. However, it is difficult not to feel some hope for this new push to reinstate the tax and finally hold corporations accountable for pollution and toxic waste. The current political moment might be just what we need to right a 26-year-old wrong.
It’s easy to miss the Polluters Pay Tax among all the other policies and priorities included in President Biden’s proposal. It’s all the way at the bottom, under a tiny subheading that says “Eliminate Tax Preferences for Fossil Fuels and Make Sure Polluting Industries Pay for Environmental Clean Up.” But though it’s only a small part of a much larger plan, its impact could be life-changing for the communities living near toxic sites. From California to New Jersey, CHEJ works with communities suffering from health problems like cancer, kidney disease, and autoimmune conditions due to toxic exposure from Superfund sites. Some communities have been on the National Priority List for forty years and are still waiting for clean up, and the list is only growing. With the reinstatement of this tax, the EPA could finally begin to do the clean-up work it is supposed to do and protect the health of the 73 million Americans living within 3 miles of a Superfund site.
This is an incredible opportunity, but we can’t assume the tax will pass. Industry is already ramping up its attacks against the legislation, and no Congressional Republicans have expressed any support for raising taxes on corporations. Slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate mean we must unify all Democratic congresspeople behind this infrastructure package and the Polluters Pay Tax in particular. Democrats Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have already introduced Polluters Pay bills. Now is the time to call our representatives, activate our frontline communities, and put the pressure on lawmakers from every state to support the Polluters Pay Tax–we’ve waited 26 years, and we cannot wait any longer.
Photo Credit: CHEJ

By: Leia Ku Cheng Yee, Communications and Development Intern
Since I have been living in California for 5 years, and have only been drinking tap water, I have always wondered if the water is safe for every Californian. Although I am a tap water advocate, and a firm believer that plastic bottled water is negatively impacting the environment, it is also significant to point out that not all individuals have the privilege to enjoy clean water. 
After listening to Andrea Amico’s story about the PFAS contamination at the Pease International Tradeport, I did some research and discovered that more than 300 drinking water wells in California have traces of chemicals, including PFAS, that is linked to cancer. I was shocked after reading about it in the Los Angeles Times, because most Californians are unaware that they are drinking traces of chemicals. Although they are concentrated largely in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, contaminated wells are found statewide, in rural as well as urban areas. 
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they persist indefinitely and accumulate in our bodies. Children and mothers are the most vulnerable to this chemical, and it can affect their reproductive and developmental health. PFAS also has been traced to kidney and testicular cancer, as well as high cholesterol and thyroid disease. It is a key ingredient in firefighting foam used in military bases, and has become a major component of groundwater pollution. But the chemicals are everywhere, hard to break down, and expensive to clean up. To learn more about PFAS, visit http://chej.org/toxictuesdays/.
Some utilities have treated the water to remove most of the chemicals, while others have started blending contaminated water with other sources to lower their concentration. Now, the new state law has required water providers to notify customers if the level of PFAS exceeds the threshold. But, it is not enough. Although the ultimate solution is to clean up, funding is scarce, and it is simply too costly to treat or replace the contaminated water. To cover the costs, water providers across California have begun what legal experts suspect could become a flood of lawsuits. 
Moreover, PFAS contamination in California is also an environmental justice issue. On any given day, one million Californians lack access to safe and affordable drinking water. Low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately harmed by this drinking water crisis, which affects hundreds of small, primarily rural communities across the state. In many cases, these communities lack the collective resources to pay for the high costs of treating or replacing contaminated water. It is not unusual for low-income residents to pay upwards of 10 percent of their income for safe water. 

By: Julia Weil, Community Organizing Intern

Climate change alters essentially everything in our environment, and it further widens existing environmental disparities through the impacts of more extreme weather events. While climate change means that heat waves, dust storms, and wildfires will increase in some parts of the country, it also means that severe flooding events and precipitation will increase in others. Additionally, as a product of climate warming, hurricanes are increasing in severity and are slowing down, meaning that they have more capacity to cause greater destruction – the longer they remain in one area, the more damage they are capable of doing.
Environmental disasters already worsen disparities, since wealthier people have greater ability to relocate and to recover financially from the devastation, in addition to the fact that most marginalized communities will bear the brunt of the initial impacts.

However, these environmental injustices are made even worse when existing pollution is taken into account. Toxic waste that is recognized as being dangerous and frequently cancer causing, that is known to be in communities with higher percentages of Black people, Hispanic people,  people living below the poverty level, people with less than a high school education, and linguistically isolated people (people who live in households whose members over 14 speak a language other than English, and who have difficulty speaking English) than the average population, will be mobilized by floods and hurricanes; most likely in ways that will increase exposure in these communities. Several studies found that where monitoring was implemented, soil, drinking water, and surface water in areas local to Superfund sites had higher levels of contamination after hurricanes (1, 2, 3, 4). However, in many cases, environmental monitoring is not very good in communities near Superfund sites.

This is yet another reason why monitoring needs to be improved, toxic cleanup must be sped up, and why “short term protectiveness” as a temporary goal for many Superfund sites is not good enough; it doesn’t set a clear timeline, it doesn’t necessarily account for the implications of the changing climate, and it continues to shrug off the environmental impacts experienced by the most vulnerable communities.

Photo Credit: Jason Dearen/AP Photo

By: Ruth Rodriguez, Communications Intern
Nearly 600 federal and state prisons are within 3 miles of a Superfund site in the United States. Over 100 are within 1 mile. These numbers are staggering. To make matters worse, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world with 655 incarcerated per 100,000. Further, people of color are overrepresented in the incarcerated population, and are more likely to live near toxic waste sites. 
The siting of prisons is an environmental injustice. These facilities are built next to mines, landfills, and as previously mentioned, Superfund sites. Some are legitimately built on top of toxic land. Inmates, as well as the communities nearby, are bearing the threats of harsh pollution. 
The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act states that all federally funded construction must report to the Environmental Protection Agency to continue. In these reports consideration is often taken into the impact of the project onto the environment and how the environment would, in turn, impact its residents. Paul Wright, the director of the Human Rights Defense Center, says that the EPA does not consider the impact on prisoners in its environmental reviews. Additionally, advocates say that even though most of the prison population is made up of people of color and people from low income communities, the EPA does not apply its environmental justice regulation to prisoners. This is due, in part, to inmates not being counted in overall population data.
Here are just a few of the many facilities putting inmates in harm’s way:

• State Correctional Institution Fayette in Labelle, Pennsylvania is located next to a coal ash dump.
• Victorville Federal Correctional Institution in California is on top of, former Superfund site, George Air Force Base.
• Rikers Island in New York was built on top of a landfill and even had a lawsuit in which former correctional officers claimed the facility gave them cancer.

The State Correctional Institution (SCI) Fayette in Labelle, Pennsylvania is nearby two coal slurry ponds and 40 million tons of coal waste. The ash dump is made up of toxics like mercury, lead, arsenic, and thallium. Because many prisoners were complaining of health issues, the Abolitionist Law Center and the Human Rights Coalition issued an investigation into the health of those incarcerated. More than 80 percent of inmates were “suffering from exposure” to the coal ash. Health problems included cancer, thyroid disorders, fatigue, throat and sinus conditions, dizziness, and headaches. Residents in the town of La Belle had similar symptoms and illnesses.
When Marcus Santos arrived at SCI Fayette he knew something was wrong. That led him to begin keeping notes of his symptoms. During his time at SCI Fayette, Santos had multiple emergency medical treatments for things like skin rashes, vision loss, and throat swelling. When he was finally relocated to another facility his health noticeably improved. Though Marcus was able to leave, the consequences from pollution exposure can be long lasting, especially on long-term inmates of SCI Fayette. 
Other environmental health issues inmates deal with are sewage and sanitation violations in their institutions, furthering the threats to their health. 
Those incarcerated are being further criminalized and punished by being prevented from living in a clean environment that is not a threat to their well-being. No one deserves to be breathing toxic air, drinking unclean water, and living on top of contaminated land. A clean environment is a basic human right, and no one should be subjected to these conditions.
Photo Credit: Bruno Mallart

By: Leia Ku Cheng Yee, Communications and Development Intern
As we enter the month of March, we mark one year of wrestling with the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In regards to the impacts of the pandemic, it comes to no surprise, that the minority, impoverished groups are the most negatively affected. One good thing that came out from the pandemic is that it has spotlighted the societal issue of the disproportionate amount of low-income population that live in contaminated areas. It has made these communities more visible than before. These low-income, racial-minority communities are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and have higher risk of death due to the decades of unjust and inequity in the system. The people still need to be more educated on this issue and raise awareness to the public. One year has gone by, and not much has changed. 
In 2020, the inequity in the country has been amplified through the Black Lives Matter Movement, but we still lack environmental regulations in the country to target environmental justice issues. I am sure that we are all aware that the virus does not discriminate, so why are certain communities struggling more than others? This is mainly caused by the lack of strong political voices in these communities, in comparison to a white, high-income community that has more economic power. Moreover, coal plants, landfills, injection wells, and other toxic waste sites have existed in communities of colors for decades, and have been emitting toxic pollutants to the air and water of these communities for years.
A new Harvard study found a significant overlap between COVID-19 fatalities and other conditions related to long-term air pollution exposure, showing that those who have lived in places with significant air pollution (cities) are 15% more likely to die from COVID-19 than those with the same health profile who live in less polluted areas. Through inhaling toxic chemicals in the air, these communities are more prone to cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, chronic health issues that increase their risk of contracting COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its first breakdown of COVID-19 case data by race, showing that 30% of patients whose race was known were black. Communities of color have long fought for environmental justice issues through addressing the unjust in the system, but they lack political and economic power to prevent incoming toxic exposure, or eradicate existing pollution. 
To address the disparities in COVID-19, we have to first address our structural inequalities in this country. The high-income communities have easier access to professional health care, priority access for testing kits as well as vaccines, and have the luxury to enjoy staying at home. On the other hand, low-income communities struggle to put food on their table, and are risking their lives everyday just living in the contaminated neighborhoods, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our country needs to invest more in public health preparedness, so that these vulnerable communities are prepared when encountering disasters like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Photo Credit: Bebeto Matthews

By: Judith Eppele, Community Organizing Intern
Growing up in a household with divorced parents, I quickly realized how important communication was for creating and sustaining strong relationships. This notion is the backbone of CHEJ, of which I’ve experienced firsthand through my time as an intern. Since I’m a community organizing intern specifically, I’ve found that having good communication with the different community groups we work with is incredibly important. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that maintaining this good communication is one of the most important parts of organizing. Though I haven’t been with CHEJ for that long–I’m coming up on my three month mark soon–I’ve been able to see this in action through helping out with the Unequal Response Unequal Protection campaign.
If you haven’t checked it out already, Unequal Response Unequal Protection is all about developing a framework to conduct health investigations for toxic chemicals. But the root of this campaign is the emphasis of it being community-driven. This is seen in the Operating Principles of the campaign, wherein the community leaders are involved throughout the entirety of the process in order to create the most effective and personalized response possible. When I first read this, I was a bit surprised, but in the best way possible. I’m an Environmental Science and Management major and so have taken some environmental policy classes, though usually there is more of an emphasis on what the government should/shouldn’t do or has/hasn’t done in respect to making change happen, as opposed to the role of community members and grassroots level organizing. I’d really only seen community members having the ability to be involved in policy making processes through a public comment period, though this doesn’t guarantee that the comments will actually be taken into consideration as the policy moves forward. On top of this, the public comment period is usually pretty short, sometimes being only 30 days long! This never sat right with me, as shouldn’t it be clear to policy makers to have solid communication with the community members that live in the area that they’re trying to enact a policy in? Aren’t they who you’re trying to help? That’s why I found Unequal Response Unequal Protection so refreshing, as there is that prioritization of solid communication between community members, scientists, and activists in order to make the best chemical contamination response possible. In doing so, everyone can submit their comments, questions, and concerns at any time throughout the process and feel confident that they’ll be heard and respected.
As I mentioned earlier, I’m a huge supporter of good and extensive communication. Without it, people and their experiences wouldn’t be accurately represented in decision-making processes, which could cause more problems than what was already there in the first place–and who wants that? While Unequal Response Unequal Protection and CHEJ in general are making waves in promoting communication, it’s definitely lacking in the greater world of policy making. While amending this may not be easy, it’s not impossible. Taking full advantage of any public comment period, setting up meetings with local policymakers, and reaching out to people outside of your community group in order to gain additional points of views on your issue are a few ways that you can take a stand in supporting the importance of communication. After all, many hands make light work, and the fight against toxic chemicals needs as many of these hands as possible.
Photo Credit: Liquid Planner