Environmental Justice


ELM Home

Collaborative

Issues

Jobs and
Volunteering

Join/Donate

Activist Tools

Links

Directions

Earth Night

Fact Sheet for S. 2418
Promoting Environmental Justice

Why We Need this EJ Bill:

  • Communities of color and low-income communities are most likely to have polluting facilities and uses such as incinerators, landfills, and toxic chemicals in their neighborhoods. Yet, these neighborhoods have had the fewest resources to confront or prevent these threats.
  • 108 cities and towns in Massachusetts have EJ communities in them. (See attached list.)
  • The average number of hazardous waste sites in cities and towns with EJ communities is over 170 sites, while the average number of sites for cities and town without EJ communities is 40 sites.
  • We already have an EJ policy at EOEA, but the policy alone won't do. We need assurances that these reasonable steps will be taken, regardless of who sits in the corner office. Policies do not have the force of law, and citizens cannot force the administration to implement them. In the end, it is up to the current governor, whoever it is, to decide whether or not the policy will be carried out. The legislature, with this bill, has an opportunity to help communities that currently lack a voice in the process to become partners in deciding what their own communities will look like.

Health Effects:

  • Passing this bill would effectuate the environmental changes necessary that are beyond an individual's control. This is vital given the current political atmosphere, which has forced a change in our public health mantra to one of self-care and self health actualization through proper diet and exercise aimed at reducing poor health outcomes such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. The health risks and health problems posed by these environmental injustices, unlike the latter, cannot be attributed to unhealthy life choices but rather to unnecessarily toxic exposures that should be monitored and regulated by the government.
  • The current percentage of people with asthma in Massachusetts is higher than the national average (9.4% vs. 7.1% in 2001).
  • Health care costs for children with asthma are more than twice the costs of health care for children who do not have asthma.
  • Massachusetts FY2002 charges for inpatient asthma hospitalizations alone totaled $55.5 million. Inpatient charges for Medicaid and Medicaid Managed Care totaled over $12 million while free care charges were $1.5 million.
  • The top ten communities for asthma hospitalizations in Massachusetts grouped by zip code are the following: Dorchester South/02124; Roxbury/02119; Brockton/02301; Dorchester North/02121; Dorchester North/02125; Dorchester South/02126; Medford/02155; Holyoke/01040; Jamaica Plain/02130; and Everett/02149.
  • Note: 5 out of 10 of the above communities are on the list of the 15 most intensively overburdened communities in Massachusetts according to Northeastern Professor Danny Faber's report, Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards.
  • The communities above have a population with more than twice the percentage of Blacks and Latinos than the Massachusetts average (27.02% vs. 12.2% using 2000 U.S. Census data).
  • The Massachusetts DPH has indicated that ambient air quality is a factor leading to higher rates of asthma in some cities over others. They cite improving air quality as one of their goals to reduce the burden of asthma in Massachusetts. They are currently conducting a study of pediatric asthma in the Merrimac Valley due to elevated asthma rates among children that are possibly related to air pollution.

What the Bill Does:

  • The bill allows for broader, more inclusive public participation in decision-making.
  • It requires quicker cleanup of brownfields and hazardous waste sites by targeting financial aid to those communities and speeding up environmental review.
  • It promotes cleaner redevelopment of existing abandoned lots and hazardous waste sites.
  • It creates better protections from polluting land uses and industry that is already there, by making sure that those facilities are complying with laws already on the books.

How the Bill works:

  • The bill defines environmental justice (EJ) populations to be serviced based on demographic data, and delineated by U.S. Census block.
  • It increases public participation and outreach through EJ training programs for government staff, agency and program fact sheets in languages other than English, and greater language accessibility at meetings.
  • It minimizes risk by targeting compliance, enforcement and technical assistance to EJ Populations, and enhanced Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review of new or expanding large sources of air emissions and regional waste facilities in these neighborhoods.
  • It encourages investments by expediting MEPA review of brownfields redevelopment projects that offer opportunities to clean up contaminated sites and to bring them into clean productive use.
  • It expands existing brownfields efforts to support the development of an inventory of Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Properties in the Commonwealth, incorporating EJ as a criterion for awarding technical assistance, grants, audits and 21E site investigations in EJ populations, as well as targeting open space resources to more effectively create, restore, and maintain open spaces located in EJ neighborhoods.
  • It promotes cleaner development by encouraging economic development projects that incorporate state-of-the-art pollution control technology, and alternatives to hazardous chemicals in neighborhoods where EJ populations reside.