Beneficial uses Must be designated, protected, met Establish water quality criteria for pollution control States (and tribes) Designate beneficial uses Establish criteria to protect designated uses Apply standards to determine water quality Issue/enforce NPDES(natl pol dischrg elim sys) permits EPA Issues guidelines for setting criteria/standards Must approve criteria Risk Assessment 4 Steps Hazard ID Dose/response Exposure Risk Disparity between detectable and 'significant' risks "healthy worker" effect Relative risks: counter-intuitive Difficulties with risk assessment Animal vs human Extrapolation to small doses Combination effects Developmental stage effects Non-cancer, non-acute toxicity effects Native American Sovereignty Teaties: reserve rights Sovereignty: dependent nations Jursidiction and env'tl protection Subject to fed laws Treatment as a state status, have primary enforc Native American Water Rights Native American "race": primary ID with nations Winters doctrine: Federal reserved rights trumps state Eurocentrism: Ascendancy of European norms Assimilation/separation: live like use, use less land, give up surplus Common good: Nat. Americans not included, reserved rights trampled by water projects Common themes in denial of Nat. Amer. rights and their disproportionate bearing of envt'l risks: Eurocentrism: nat. amer. outside 'common good' Sovereignty: freq. legal challenges to sov. status Environmental racism Definition Factors promoting include Bad actor Failure of institutional oversight Systematic racism at an institution & societal level ER: Pulido Narrow conception of racism as intentional hostile acts: Miss role of structural racism Not recognize dynamic, sociospatial process Limit claims, perpetuate racist order 2 dimensions of racism Scale: Individual vs group/community/country Intention: Unintentional/unconcious to intentional hostility White privilege Conditions under which it thrives How it leads to environmental racism ER: Bowen Characteristics of poor studies ER: West et al. Fish consumption levels correlated with SES and minority status Local and at-risk population exposure data needed for just risk analysis ER: Buzzelli & Jerrett Nieghborhood dwelling values and some visible-minority indicators significantly associated with ambient air pollution exposure Other visible-minority indicators weakly related to or even anti-correlated with exposure Asians anti-correlated with exposure, blacks slightly Ambient air-pollution exposure significantly increases mortality risk Environmental justice frameworks: Bullard Principles of equity: procedural, social, geographic Principles of EJ Protection = right Prevention Polluters must prove Irrelevant Intent Redress EJ: Bryner Expand EJ scope: nat'l resources Both: Issue of power/choice Both: Problematic dist. of benefits/burdens "Traditional" EJ scope: disprop. exposure to env risks 5 frameworks: Ecological sustainability most encompassing Civil rights Distributive Justice and env ethics Public participation Social justice EJ: Wenz "Just garbage" Existing practices: Defended with doctrine of double effect Refuted: No greater good 4 rejected theories of justice Libertarianism: everyone has veto Utilitarianism: Where's the beef? Free market: Vital interests require amelioration of market-based inequalities Cost-benefit analysis: justifies disprop burdens Principle of commensurate burdens and benefits Came up with LULU points Toxic hazards & consumerism Refutes some theories of justice Defense of current practices "blameless" economic forces drive disprop. impacts on nonwhites(more often poor) By 'doctrine of double effect', disprop impacts are OK LULU points All communities required to learn LULU points Comm. with greater benefits(wealth) must earn more Judgement+racism = descrimination BUT would provide greater relief Would compel less waste generation Compelling strategy? Refutation Untrue that purely economic forces responsible DDE says: OK to do bad thing if incidental to achieving greater good Disprop. impacts for any reason are not good Principles of Commensurate burdens/benefits Those deriving benefits should sustain commen burdens Generally accepted: exceptions must be justified & therefore prove the rule With value system of our economy, means that wealth and prox. to toxics should be correlated Wenz's "lowerarchy of worry" Worry = economic well-being manufacturing up = economic well-being up consumption up = manufacturing up (wants -> needs) up = consumption up Worry up = (wants -> needs) up but Manufacturing up = toxic waste up Worry up = NIMBY up Rawls principles of justice All people's interests deserve equal weight Selfish ppl behind 'veil of ignorance' would choose equal consideration EJ Policy: Rosenbaum Environmental protection laws often do not set clear guidelines for determining levels of acceptable risk Environmental policy is often based on assumptions or expert opinions rather than data EJ is difficult to incorporate into environmental policy because it encompasses much more than environmental risk 3 main systems/criteria for determining appropriate risk: Health-based criteria Technology-based criteria Cost-benefit analysis Environmental Economics: Bezdek Spending on environmental protection promotes a globally competitive environmental protection industry EJ Policy: Hill & Targ Executive Order on EJ does not enable victims of environmental racism to sue government agencies on EJ grounds Principle of 'lower yet adequate' protection from environmental hazards has been upheld in court EJ Case Studies Distributive injustice Procedural injustice Disproportionate Burdens Limited successes --- FIRST MIDTERM --- Methodologies Processes & Outcomes of Injustice Process studies LULU siting: bias vs market forces Sociospatial: Classism, racism Outcome studies: presence, extent of disparities in exposure Pollution -> exposure -> harm Scale, study design issues Water Quality and Risk Risk assessment uses fish consumption estimates to determine exposure levels Who is protected? Bell curve with line down the middle, to the left is protected, to the right is unprotected. Unjust Exposure? Monitoring data Pollution estimates Socio-economic status(SES) indicators "Visible-minority" status Pollution correlated with SES Visible-minority status complicated(immigrant status) Latin Americans are more likely to be exposed to pollution African Americans - No correlation to exposure Unjst harm? Jerrett et al, 2005: "Does chronic exposure to particular air pollution significantly associate with mortality when the effects of other social, demographic, and lifestyle confounders are taken into account?" Smoking confounds the problem Mortality ratios for census tracts Social & demographic data Surveyed smoking data Pollution data Mortality correlated with exposure, SES Summary: West et al. Fish consumption levels correlated with SES and minority status Local and at-risk population exposure data needed for _just_ risk analysis If you're poor and a minority, you eat more fish. Richer eat less fish. White people opposite. Summary: Buzzelli & Jerret Neighborhood dwelling values and some visible-minority indicators significantly associated with ambient air pollution exposure Other visible-minority indicators weakly related to or even anti-correlated with exposure Ambient air pollution exposure significantly increases mortality risk. Working definition of racism The systematic mistreatment of one group by another based on racial heritage Working definition of environmental racism Disproportionate burdens and benefits in the environment based on race. Conception of whiteness and color Expanding definition of whiteness, especially over the 20th century. Irish not considered white at beginning of 20th century. White: Whatever gets you white privilege Explanation of "beneficial uses" for water & the basic regulatory scheme Beneficial uses for water quality. Drinking, resident, spawning, migratory habitats. Water rights given to people who 'use it for the common good' or 'beneficial use'. States regulate water quality. EPA and US gov't only provide resources and oversight. Differences between regulations based on _water quality_ standards and _technology-based_ standards Professor has been describing water quality based standards Major components and assumptions of risk assessment Identification of risk/hazard Most chemicals we use have not been tested whether they are hazardous. Dose/response. How much is hazardous? How much do you need to elevate your risk? Can we identify a 1 in a million risk of cancer in an animal study? Limits of animal testing Animals aren't tested for hazards We can do a 10% risk of cancer in humans from animal studies Instead, we have to extrapolate Carcinogens: 0 risk at 0 levels of exposure "Background" cancer risk relative to regulated We don't accept any 1 substance or any 1 exposure, we don't accept anything greater than 1 in a million risk Relative cancer risks from different hazards Contaminated wells, second-hand smoking, pesticides on food, not so much on nuclear powerplant radiation Treaties, sovereignty(as applicable to Indian Nations) Granting of rights to the US gov't from the Native American nations Reservations reserve certain rights Indians on reservations subject to US laws White people on reservations subject to Indian laws Reservations can raise taxes Indian nations are sovereign nations, but wards of the US state. US therefore has a trust obligation. Types of disproprtionate environmental impacts on the reservations and some explanations Exposure to unsafe levels of contamination in drinking water. Relative roles of Feds, states, & tribes regarding authority to reulate, ability to regulate Tribes often have the authority to regulate if given status. Tribes were 20 years behind states in environmental regulation in terms of resources to set standards and levels of exposure, and with permitting processes. Potential lack of ability to regulate, things like economic blackmail exists How water rights are supposed to be regulated and reserved by Indian nations and if they're treated as such is a substantial issue States have the authority to regulate, and in order to not be arbitrary and cupricious they need studies. Same with Indian tribes. Doctrine ruling Native American water rights Winters doctrine: The idea that Indian rights are reserved rights, rights are necessary for treaty obligations to be met. Reservations function as a place of dwelling and livelyhood. RIghts are federal and trump state use doctrines. Doctrine vs. actuality (doctrine applies? Why or why not?) How do we define environmental racism? What are some factors at play(bad actors, institutional oversight, systematic racism?) What is a LULU and how does it relate to environmental racism? How can the objective practice of risk assessment lead to environmental racism? Don't consider exposure based on minority status What are 2 "dimensions of racism" by Pullito SCALE AND INTENTION City vs country on one dimension, other dimension talking about 'did you mean it or not?' What is white privilege and how can it consitute racism? White privilege is the benefits of being white