Earlier this year, The Environmental Protection Agency introduced the “EJ 2020 Action Agenda” (EJ 2020), which is the EPA’s strategy for implementing environmental justice through the year 2020. It’s worth a reminder to say that Environmental Justice is not a rule or regulation – it is Executive Order 12898. It is only of late that this Executive Order has received new life.
As we have reported several times in our blogs, beginning as far back as January 2014, Environmental Justice is an increasing factor for environmental permitting and can impact environmental permits for everyone from the manufacturer in an urban area to a livestock farm in a rural area.
As stated previously, we support environmental protection for all, regardless of socio-economic status; however, could the Environmental Justice program, while good intentioned, be counter-productive? For example, Brownfield programs incentivize urban redevelopment and encourage companies to move back to disadvantaged areas. Environmental Justice might, unwittingly, prove to have the opposite effect by telling employers they are “on notice” for additional scrutiny and more enforcement.
With that said, we want to keep you up-to-date on the Environmental Justice program.
The Vision of EJ 2020 is that the EPA will integrate environmental justice into everything they do. They plan on achieving this integration through three goals (Goals I, II, and III).
Goal I: “Deepen environmental justice practice within the EPA programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened communities.”
The strategies to achieve Goal I include:
- “Institutionalized environmental justice in rulemaking …including rigorous assessments of environmental justice analyses in rules.”
- “Establish a framework and tools for considering environmental justice in EPA-issued permits…”
- “Direct more enforcement resources to address pollution and public health burdens caused by violations of environmental laws in overburdened communities, increased compliance evaluations, enforcement actions and settlements that benefit those communities, and conduct community-based compliance and enforcement strategies in 100 of the most overburdened communities” (emphasis added).
Goal II: “Work with partners to expand our positive impact within overburdened communities.”
The strategies to achieve Goal II include:
- “Work with states and local governments to develop and implement a phased approach to building on-the-ground collaborations…”
- “Advance environmental justice within federal agencies through the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, with emphasis on strengthening consideration of Environmental Justice in the National Environmental Policy Act…”
Goal III: “Demonstrate Progress on significant national environmental justice challenges.”
The strategies to achieve Goal III include:
- “Work to eliminate disparities in childhood blood lead levels…”
- “Work to ensure all people served by community water systems have drinking water that meets applicable health based standards…”
You can take a deeper dive into how Environmental Justice might impact your company and community by using the “EJSCREEN Mapping Tool.”
Commentary
First, since the beginning of the modern environmental “movement,” we have developed numerous environmental laws and regulations. These regulations use scientific protocol and established risk-based criteria and permits that should be protective of (all) human health and the environment. We hope that focusing on environmental compliance within the current suite of regulations will provide all communities with the protection they expect and deserve.
Second, by the very definition, the Environmental Justice communities are in need of jobs. With a focus on compliance enforcement in “100 of the most overburdened communities,” could EJ be a disincentive for employers in those communities to seek expansions (and new job opportunities)? It is the presence of financially-healthy businesses that provides the tax base to improve a community. Without the business, the government will not have the funding to implement any programs, regardless of how well intentioned.
Third, we have seen firsthand how some communities are seemingly marginalized and ignored based on demographics. But will another layer of regulation or executive orders make a difference? We hope that using the existing regulatory structure and holding those in charge accountable for doing their would be protective for all.
Helping those who are marginalized is absolutely the “right thing” to do. In my opinion, making sure our regulators are equitably implementing our existing regulations is the best way to a clean environment, a predictable regulatory environment for business, and opportunities for jobs in the “overburden communities.”
If you have any questions about environmental issues, please feel free to contact me (ahahn@dragun.com) or call our office at 248-932-0228.