Startseite There’s a hole in the bucket: rethinking the role of community collected data in environmental justice movements
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

There’s a hole in the bucket: rethinking the role of community collected data in environmental justice movements

  • Katheryne T. Kramer EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 11. Oktober 2013

Abstract

Communities living next to petrochemical facilities, refineries, and other industries producing hazardous air pollution have used inexpensive air sampling technology, known as “Buckets”, to test the air quality of their homes and neighborhoods. These samples have mobilized the communities around environmental justice issues, attracted media attention to their plight, and generated political responses; however they have not been used as part of a litigation strategy. This paper addresses the issue of whether or not these samples could be admissible to advance Clean Air Act claims in favor of these communities. The paper also sets out normative arguments that address whether environmental justice communities should focus their time, efforts, and financial resources to achieve this goal.


Corresponding author: Katheryne T. Kramer, Tulane University Law School, 6329 Freret St, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA, E-mail:

This paper grew out of a presentation given at the 2012 Break the Cycle Symposium at Emory University. I am grateful for the support of the Institute for Disparity and Disability, Emory University, and the EPA for making the Symposium possible and for their commitment to the student researchers. None of this would be possible without the efforts of Dr. Leslie Rubin, Dr. Robert Geller and Janice Nodvin, who provided invaluable advice and assistance. Additional thanks to Anne Rolfes, Director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade for her interest in my project and her tireless efforts on behalf of Mossville and other Louisiana communities. Finally, I thank my advisor, Professor Colin Crawford, J.D., for his guidance and enthusiasm for this project.

References

1. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Toxic waste and race in the United States. New York, 1987.Suche in Google Scholar

2. Kampa M, Castanas E. Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut 2008;151:362–7.10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Mott L. The disproportionate impact of environmental health threats on children of color. Environ Health Perspect 1995;103:33–5.10.1289/ehp.95103s633Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Brulle R, Pellow N. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2006;27:24, 106.10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Bullard RD, editor. The quest for environmental justice. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005.Suche in Google Scholar

6. O’Rourke MG. Community environmental policing: assessing new strategies of public participation in environmental regulation. J Policy Analysis Manage 2003;22:383–414.10.1002/pam.10138Suche in Google Scholar

7. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. Health consultation: follow-up exposure investigation, Calcasieu Estuary (a/k/a Mossville), Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, EPA Facility ID. LA0002368173, 2006 Mar 13.Suche in Google Scholar

8. Mossville Environmental Action Now, Inc., Subra Company, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights. Industrial sources of dioxin poisoning in Mossville, Louisiana: a report based on the Government’s Own Data. Louisiana, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar

9. Mossville Environmental Action Now. About Mossville environmental action now [internet]. Accessed May 20, 2012. URL: http://meannow.wordpress.com/about/.Suche in Google Scholar

10. Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (2009).Suche in Google Scholar

11. Walker N, Harden M. Second amended petition and petitioners’ observations on the Government’s failure to protect the human rights of the residents of Mossville, Louisiana, United States of America. Petition No. P-242-05, 2008 Jun 23.Suche in Google Scholar

12. Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (2009). Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, Division of Health Consultation. Health consultation: Exposure investigation report, Calcasieu Estuary (a/k/a Mossville), Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. CERLIS No. LA0002368173, 1999 Nov 19.Suche in Google Scholar

13. Exec. Order No. 12,898, Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low income populations. 59 Fed. Reg. 32, 1994 Febr 11.Suche in Google Scholar

14. Office of Inspector General. Evaluation Report: EPA Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice. Report No. 2004-P-00007, 2004 Mar 1.Suche in Google Scholar

15. Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7604.Suche in Google Scholar

16. Reitze AW. Air Pollution Control Law: Compliance and enforcement. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2001.Suche in Google Scholar

17. Environmental Protection Agency. Any credible evidence rule, 62 CFR 8314, 1997.Suche in Google Scholar

18. S. REP. No. 101–228, 1989.Suche in Google Scholar

19. Clean Air Act Implementation Project v. EPA, 150 F. 3d 12000, DC Cir 1998.Suche in Google Scholar

20. Hanson AC. A sip call for clarity: an analysis of the effect of the eleventh circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. Tennessee Valley Authority on State Implementation of the Federal Credible Evidence Rule. Colum J Envtl L 2008;33:283–321.Suche in Google Scholar

21. Sierra Club v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, 894 F. Supp. 1455, D Colo 1995.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Sierra Club v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 430 F. 3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005).Suche in Google Scholar

23. Norton S. Factors for determining validity of evidence in clean air act litigation. J Land Use Envtl Law 2000;15:236–76.Suche in Google Scholar

24. Grand Canyon Trust v. Public Service Company of New Mexico, 294 F. Supp. 2d, (D.N.M., 2003).Suche in Google Scholar

25. Fed. R. Evid. 701 (2012).Suche in Google Scholar

26. Fed. R. Evid. 701 Advisory Notes (2000).Suche in Google Scholar

27. Fed. R. Evid. 702 (2012).10.1515/9783110278712.702Suche in Google Scholar

28. Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note (2000).Suche in Google Scholar

29. Kaye DH, Bernstein DE, Mnookin JL. The new Wigmore: expert evidence. Austin, TX: Aspen Press, 2011.Suche in Google Scholar

30. St. Martin v. Mobile Exploration and producing U.S. Inc., 224 F. 3d 402 (5th Cir. 2000).Suche in Google Scholar

31. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Suche in Google Scholar

32. Ballou v. Henri Studios, Inc., 656 F.2d. 1147 (5th Cir., 1981).Suche in Google Scholar

33. Houston/Galveston Citizen Air Monitoring Project [homepage on the internet]. Houston, TX: EPA Region 6: [updated 2011 Nov 02; Cited 2012 May 15]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6lab/hgcamp/hgcamp.htm.Suche in Google Scholar

34. US EPA Region 9: Summary of Quality Assurance Planning for the “Bucket Brigade” Community Air Sampling Project, Contra Costa County, California. California, 2001.Suche in Google Scholar

35. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).Suche in Google Scholar

36. Fed. R. Evid. 401 (2012).Suche in Google Scholar

37. Ottinger G. Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Sci Technol Hum Values 2010;35:244–70.10.1177/0162243909337121Suche in Google Scholar

38. St. Bernard Citizens for Envtl Quality Inc, v. Chalmette Refining, LLC, 348 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. La. 2004).Suche in Google Scholar

39. Conway-Jones, D. Factual causation in toxic tort litigation: a philosophical view of proof and certainty in uncertain disciplines. U Rich L Rev 2005;35:875–953.Suche in Google Scholar

40. Fed. R. Evid. 105 (2012).Suche in Google Scholar

41. Lin AC. Beyond tort: compensating victims of environmental toxic injury. S Cal L Rev 2005;78:1439–551.Suche in Google Scholar

42. Smith S. Bill aimed at limiting La. law clinic dies. Bloomberg Businessweek [internet]. Accessed 2012 May 09. URL: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FQIDHG0.htm.Suche in Google Scholar

43. NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality. Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project. Trenton NJ, 2005.Suche in Google Scholar

44. National Resources Law Center. Evaluating the Use of Good Neighbor Agreements for Environmental and Community Protection. Boulder CO, 2004.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2012-8-6
Accepted: 2012-9-18
Published Online: 2013-10-11
Published in Print: 2013-11-01

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Heruntergeladen am 27.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijdhd-2013-0206/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen