By: Keely Bluett
Introduction
The concept of Environmentalism grew substantially in the 1960s, alongside a new form of American liberalism and the government’s reclassification of human rights. A thriving environment was socially determined as a human right and deserving of protection. Which caused federal, state, and local governments to respond to this cause; focusing on air, water, and solid waste disposal regulations. However, these regulations neglected to protect the environment from the full spectrum of pollutants and hazards. A holistic and successful approach to environmental regulation, preservation, and conservation has yet to be achieved. Although the environmental movement provided considerable progress and expanded rights for American citizens, it allowed for new forms of social discrimination to be identified, with the United States government and society to blame.
The environmental justice movement[1] was born in the late 1970s through the crucial events in Warren County, North Carolina, and Love Canal, New York. The Warren County crisis occurred when a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) landfill was forced to be established in a predominantly black community; this took place simultaneously as the breakthrough news of Love Canal’s toxic waste pollution spread across the country. Although both environmental calamities demonstrated the negative effects of toxic waste pollution, comparing their circumstances highlights the inequality of environmental rights. The population of Love Canal was largely white. While it did solidify humanity’s right to a healthy environment, the majority-black population of Warren County was the origin of the environmental justice movement. Their legal cases represented the mistreatment of communities of color and sparked research into environmental racism. The following research will provide background to the modern environmental movement in the United States, using the backdrop of Love Canal and Warren County to demonstrate the disproportional effect of environmental hazards and the resulting need for an environmental justice movement.
Modern Environmental Movement
Before the 1960s, the American public generally supported environmental action surrounding National/State Parks, specific wildlife preservation, and a romanticized, surface-level vision of nature. These perceptions could be traced back to nineteenth-century transcendentalist thought and the Great Depression recovery in the early twentieth century. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, like the Civilian Conservation Corps, led to public awareness and support for National Parks and environmental recreation as an avenue for public, economic, and political recovery during the Great Depression. The environment had always existed in the collective consciousness of the American Public, but Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring ignited a new sense of urgency around environmental hazards and health.
Silent Spring foretold the future devastation of the environment after the use of dangerous pesticides, mainly dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT).[2] The imagery surrounding pesticide use was bleak. Carson, a biologist, underlined how animal species would eventually be severely limited and food resources would be scarce. The world, as it was known would no longer exist.[3] The fear surrounding synthetic pesticides and other chemicals derived from their increased use during the early twentieth century. Carson saw how disinformation spread throughout society, perpetuated by chemical companies and the American government; her research sparked a public epiphany. Suddenly, middle-class women, radical student populations, varied counterculture factions, and the emerging new liberalism responded to Carson’s message with environmental activism.[4]
Politicians responded to the growing Environmental Movement of the 1960s with substantial change. The Nixon administration, riding the coattails of LBJ’s “Great Society” and an active liberal population, gained public support by signing the National Environmental Policy Act into effect on New Year’s Day, 1970. This Act was meant to ensure that all federal agencies incorporate environmental concerns into their missions and will be overseen by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Federal agencies are to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) detailing their governmental decision/action. Although these required statements appeared as if they would keep federal agencies on track, the policy soon became purely “procedural”, as stated by the Supreme Court in 1978.[5]An oversight like this in governmental policy demonstrates how social and political initiatives were not upheld. Nixon later created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed fourteen pieces of environmental legislation into action, including stricter legislation for pesticide and toxic substance regulation. Although Nixon gained headway with environmental initiatives, these advancements were mostly for public appeal.
As a result of the modern environmental movement, the first Earth Week (now Earth Day) was celebrated in 1970. Young liberals and other supporters joined to demonstrate respect towards the Earth, its rights, and its importance to mankind. This concept merges into the closely followed Environmental Justice movement, created out of necessity following Warren County’s and Love Canal’s crises. These cases display the social conflict around the government’s obligation to its citizens. The environmental movement had thus far lacked inclusion of all United States residents, and a healthy environment was viewed as a privilege to some rather than a right to all.
Historiography
Scholarship on environmental justice has increased since the movement was established and sets out to define further why the movement is important and who it affects. Eileen McGurty is an urban planner and environmental practitioner specializing in environmental justice, waste policy, and urban sustainability. Her research on Warren County highlights the event as the starting point for environmental justice but also references the significance of Love Canal. She frames Warren County’s public unrest around “disruptive collective action” and environmental racism. The PCB landfill served as a major influence on environmental activism and policy. McGurty clarifies that environmental justice advocates believe that an unequal distribution of environmental degradation is a result of excluding communities of color and low income.
A common analysis among scholars like McGurty, Adam Rome, and Cole Young demonstrates how separated the Civil Rights movement, and the environmental movement was from each other until Warren County. Activists within the Civil Rights movement saw the environmentalist agenda as white-oriented since black citizens could not fight for a healthy environment when they were fighting for their own rights and liberties. McGurty also acknowledges how Love Canal gave way to a formulated web of activists and organizations that focused on environmental hazards. Research increased, resistance groups emerged, and environmental protection reached a new level of action. McGurty’s scholarship highlights how the Civil Rights movement, which previously ignored environmentalism, aligned its values with the political action in Warren County. The PCB landfill was forced upon the community after the harmful possibilities of toxic chemicals in the soil, water, and air were already evident.
“Limited Victory: Love Canal Reclaimed” by John Stranges, Matthew Troia, and Claudette Walck provide insight into the groundbreaking activism that Love Canal residents exercised. The article focuses on the politics around science and the discipline’s application to public health and safety. The research done by Lois Gibbs, the primary activist for Love Canal, was considered “useless housewife data” by many officials involved with Love Canal. The controversy around the environment’s health was up to expert scientists to prove the social implications of environmental hazards. This scholarship signifies how society relied heavily on science to support its cause for environmental justice and truth.
Overall, this scholarship provides insight into how the communities of Warren County and Love Canal experienced environmental harm, their government’s response, and how they advocated/protested for their environmental rights. McGurty’s research details how smaller social and environmental issues often leave communities of color at a disadvantage. Thomson highlights how the social discourse around the Love Canal protests did not focus on the equitable treatment of all people but rather on the community’s own right to environmental health, whereas Warren County is more closely connected to earlier legal cases of environmental racism and the following legacy of global environmental justice involving race.
Love Canal, New York
William T. Love planned to dig a canal connecting the upper Niagara River with Lewiston, New York. However, due to financial reasons, the canal was never completed; therefore the Hooker Chemical Company used the partially dug canal as a toxic waste dump site from 1920 to 1953. Hooker then sold the canal to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for one dollar after covering the waste with dirt. The deed included a disclaimer that Hooker Chemical Company was not responsible for any ill effects as a result of the property.[6] The area contained forty-three million pounds of industrial waste stored in fifty-five-gallon drums buried underground.[7] The 99th Street School was built by the Board of Education and housing was established around the school. It became an ordinary white, middle class community. However, throughout the 1970s, multiple families complained of noxious odors and toxic, chemical sludge seeping into their basements and coming up through their yards.[8] Children and pets experienced skin burns and rashes from playing outside and many families experienced decreasing health.[9] In 1968, Karen Schroeder gave birth to a baby girl named Sheri, who had an irregular heartbeat, a hole in her heart, partial deafness, deformed ear exteriors, and a cleft palate.[10] This family tragedy was not an isolated event in Love Canal.
Figure 1. Half-buried and leaking hazardous waste containment tanks in Love Canal neighborhood of abandoned homes, Photograph from Love Canal Images. Niagara Falls, NY. PA_1
The New York State Department of Health quickly declared a state of emergency in 1978 and sectioned homes into boundaries, those closest to the canal were in an “imminent health hazard.” Pregnant women and children under two were ordered to evacuate at once. The New York Governor, Hugh Carey, provided permanent relocation of 239 families who were located closest to the canal. President Jimmy Carter also declared it a Federal Emergency. The 99th Street School was quickly closed.[11] Lois Gibbs, a Love Canal homemaker, and mother, emerged as the prime advocate for compensation, relocation, and other support for Love Canal families. She founded the Love Canal Homeowners Association in 1978 after her son had been experiencing seizures, her daughter was diagnosed with a blood disorder, and the news of the toxic waste below the community was released in the Niagara Falls Gazette by Michael Brown.[12]
Within Brown’s article, a governmental report was mentioned, which Gibbs read, that unveiled that the government knew of the toxic chemicals and their effects two years prior. Yet, the government decided to keep things brushed under the rug. The Love Canal Homeowners Association conducted their own studies on public health to persuade the state to look into their cause. The Association also conducted protests, contacted its representatives, and reached out to Governor Carey and President Carter directly. Slowly, government officials respond lightly, usually under the pressure of reelection.[13] The Ecumenical Task Force (ETF) of the Niagara Frontier, Inc. was created to address the Love Canal disaster. Their mission was to chronicle the events surrounding Love Canal and provide a platform for direct political action to be taken. The ETF stood in opposition to any further hazardous waste landfills, expansion of pre-existing waste sites, or radioactive dump sites in the Niagara Frontier. They also responded by providing relief from the physical, psychological, and economic distress that families experienced from chemical and radioactive contamination in their homes. Their mission was to seek “reconciliation through justice.”[14]
Residents of Love Canal and the Love Canal Homeowners Association conducted many protest initiatives throughout the crisis. The movement was largely led by stay-at-home mothers and homemakers. Lois Gibbs organized the original petition to shut down 99th Street School, went door-to-door to collect personal experiences within the community, met with state officials, and made powerful statements against Hooker Chemical Company. Referenced from Gibbs, Love Canal activists once managed to acquire 200 tickets to the company’s annual open house, where their employees and neighbors celebrated with a picnic. At this event activists all wore shirts that said “Love Canal, Another Product of Hooker Chemical Corporation.”[15] They also utilized the press and published a full-page ad stating “Love Canal Ask Those Who Really Know!” A list of grievances was provided on the page, stating that Love Canal residents couldn’t access their basements, children couldn’t play in the yard, children couldn’t attend school, they could not sell their homes, and numerous other ongoing issues. The list concludes with the sentiment, “We cannot live at Love Canal – We cannot leave Love Canal.”[16] Residents wanted to ensure that Love Canal became a household name nationwide and their stories were never forgotten. Although the Homeowners Association’s main concern was to receive compensation and reconciliation from the state, they never forgot the initial culprit of the crime. Hooker responded to the negative press they were receiving by publishing an ad in the newspaper entitled, “Let’s Set The Record Straight.” The company proceeded to deny that they covered up the toxic waste dump and claimed ignorance of the harmful effects the chemicals have on humans and the environment.[17] Since Hooker Chemical Corporation and other chemical companies were significant industries and employers in the Niagara Falls area, these industries had to ensure the public perception of chemical companies was positive. Hooker Chemical Corporation printed testimonials from their employees, or what they advertised as employees, claiming their disappointment and disagreement towards their company’s negative press surrounding Love Canal.
Leading into the 1980s, the families of Love Canal proceeded to evacuate the area, some later than they should. A few households that were farther away from the central contamination site remained till the 2000s. The area underwent an extensive clean-up process that left the site habitable, but not necessarily safe. In September 2004, Love Canal was eliminated from the EPA’s Superfund program, claiming the area presents no threat to human health or the environment.[18] Love Canal has been considered a “moment of progressive grassroots triumph” for the resident’s ability to organize, petition/fight, and receive mobility out of their hazardous homes and achieve potential health.[19] The historical event allows for the environment, and its connection to human health, to be contextualized under human rights and citizen rights. The residents of Love Canal proved that the United States government is responsible for protecting its population from environmental hazards to protect its citizen’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Warren County, North Carolina
The Warren County, North Carolina PCB landfill conflict started in the summer of 1978 with the illegal dumping of 12,850 gallons of PCB laced discharge liquid along road shoulders spanning 240 miles throughout North Carolina. Robert Burns and his two sons were hired by Robert Ward Jr., owner of Ward Transformer Company in Raleigh, to illegally dump the toxic waste and avoid the rising cost of proper PCB disposal.[20] The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 regulated PCB disposal and initiated a gradual ban on the chemical.[21] It was the responsibility of the state to dispose of the waste, along with the EPA. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund) in 1980, the majority of the cleanup cost was reserved for the federal government.[22] The state had multiple options for cleanup, the cheapest being the in-state burial of the waste for 2.5 million dollars. Land options were narrowed down to two tracts of land; one being the pre-existing, publicly owned, Chatham County sanitary landfill and the other being private property sold to the state in Warren County. Chatham County residents, who were about 72% white, utilized a public hearing for the proposed landfill and voiced persuasive opposition.[23] County commissioners followed the public perspective and refused to sell their landfill space for PCB waste. Subsequently, the state then chose the site in Afton, North Carolina located in Warren County, a predominantly black county (70%), mostly poor, rural, and lacking strong political power.[24] Warren County also experienced the most contamination from the illegally dumped Ward Transformer PCB waste out of all the counties in North Carolina.
Upon the site selection, no public hearing was conducted for the residents of Warren County, as it had previously been for Chatham County residents. Although the landfill site was selected on private property, implementing the landfill would affect the community as a whole. A public hearing should have been scheduled to voice a public opinion and discuss any pre-existing regulations and zoning laws in Warren County. By skipping a public hearing, the state of North Carolina and its Governor, James Hunt, attempted to work quickly and avoid any public resistance to cleaning the roadsides. Citizens first heard the news of the landfill in the local newspaper, after the state already made its decision. The lack of communication felt like a target on the backs of Warren County residents. They were deprived of an attempt to discuss the landfill before it was confirmed. Opposition to the landfill started immediately. Soon public sentiment agreed that the county’s racial demographic and low-income status was the driving factor for the site selection. After the landfill was announced in the paper, the state held a required public meeting to announce the landfill and take questions. Around 600-1000 Warren County residents attended. Here, the state proceeded to ask the EPA to waive certain safety regulations that they require for landfills. The state asked to eliminate the requirement for at least fifty feet between the bottom of the landfill and groundwater (the Warren County site had seven feet between the landfill and groundwater), to eliminate an artificial liner, and to eliminate an underliner leachate system.[25] These waivers demonstrate the state’s lack of protection for its Warren County residents to hastily construct a landfill. Citizens spoke, stating they did not want their community to turn into “another Love Canal.”
The backlash to the landfill’s inception started with fear for public health, groundwater contamination, and a decline in economic development from the stigma surrounding a toxic waste landfill. As the PCB dumping in North Carolina was discovered, the Love Canal crisis was highlighted on the national stage. The people of Warren County looked at the Love Canal crisis and envisioned their potential future. High cancer rates, birth defects, and other serious health conditions were looming in the distance with the construction of the landfill in order. They were scared for the safety and well-being of the community. Along the North Carolina roads where PCBs were dumped, it was reported that citizens experienced an increase in miscarriages, birth defects, congenital illness, and twelve mothers had PCB contamination in their breast milk.
Warren County residents did not want this public health concern to continue for years to come, affecting multiple generations. Residents hired their own soil expert, Charles Mulchi from the University of Maryland-College Park, who stated that the soil would not meet the standards for a landfill without an artificial liner. He also found that the soil had a high chemical exchange capacity and engineering designs could not make the site safe enough for a PCB landfill. Communication between Governor Hunt and the state of North Carolina remained positive toward Warren County citizens to assure them that the landfill was safe. Often, state and EPA officials referred to the site as the “Cadillac of landfills” to lower public resistance. However, William Sanjour, chief of the EPA’s Hazardous Waste Implementation branch, spoke openly in opposition to his agency. He claimed that hazardous waste landfills don’t work and the decision on where to put them is based on politics, not science. A community member highlights how the flashy term “Cadillac” was an attempt to metaphorically pull the wool over the eyes of Warren County residents.
“I knew that when Hunt said to us that this was going to be a ‘Cadillac,’ I knew he was trying to fool us because black folk don’t ever drive Cadillacs, but Hunt knew that that’s black folks’ goal, is to own a Cadillac. And I think that was a racist comment within itself, that [Hunt thought,] ‘I can go in there and tell those black folks this is a Cadillac, they’re going to forget, you know, they’re not going to be worried about their health because this is the Cadillac’…if he ever came in here and said ‘This is a Pinto,’ we would have been really worried.”[26] -Warren County Community Member
Newspaper Coverage
The county joined together in their distrust and filed suit against North Carolina State and the EPA, fighting for the prevention of a PCB toxic waste landfill near their homes. Construction for the Warren County PCB landfill started on May 26, 1982, in the city of Afton, just after Warren County vs. State of North Carolina, et al was settled. The case originally had four causes of action against the State…
- “The disposal of the PCBs constitutes a public nuisance.
- The site approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is defective in that it contains impermissible waivers of EPA regulations.
- Defendants failed to prepare and publish an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. 113A-4(2).
- The decision to establish the landfill was arbitrary and capricious and should be set aside.”
Later amendments to the complaint added a fifth and sixth cause, stating that a Warren County ordinance prohibited disposal of PCBs anywhere in the county and the state was disregarding this regulation. The sixth cause of action included the court reviewing the adequacy of the EIS filed by the State of North Carolina.[27] The court ultimately ruled that the plot of land sold to the state from husband and wife, Carter and Linda Pope, was able to house the PCB landfill. The land was purchased three years prior and came with stipulations in the deed. The landfill was not to house hazardous chemicals other than the PCB polluted soil from the 210-mile stretch of highway in North Carolina. A major worry among the Warren County population and Citizens Concerned about PCBs was that the tract of land would be used to create more landfills and dump future hazardous waste. The state agreed that the land would only maintain PCBs. Construction of the landfill was publicized in the Warren Record on June 2, 1982.[28]
The Warren Record continued to cover the landfill conflict, publishing editorial articles surrounding National PCB safety disagreements and lists of businesses/people who were petitioning against the State’s decision.[29] The Citizens Concerned about PCBs filed another lawsuit against the state to prevent the toxic chemical from being buried in Warren County. Newspaper coverage also highlighted how the Warren County Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Coley Springs Baptist Church were participating in the lawsuit and alluded to how the protests overlapped with Civil Rights and continued racial conflict. Concerned Citizens about PCBs held a county-wide meeting at Afton Schoolhouse to increase their support.
The county-wide meeting ended up packed with locals. At this meeting, attendees seriously conveyed their perceptions of targeted state action against a community of color and lower socioeconomic status. Speaker James T. Fleming, a local Realtor, and chairman of the Warren County Cancer Association, took note of the damage North Carolina’s Governor Hunt was creating. “What kind of governor would come to one of the lowest per capita income counties that is down on the bottom and trying to get up and give them a PCB dump?” stated Fleming. Dr. James Grabill, a physician in Warren County, announced to the audience the increasing number of health issues related to genetics in the area over the previous years. Grabill, warned what negative health conditions would arise if a concentrated amount of carcinogenic and mutagenic material were to be placed centrally in an area with an already high rate of genetic health conditions.[30] The lawsuit filed by the Warren Chapter of the NAACP, Coley Springs Baptist Church, and 26 individuals was denied by U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britts.
Others attempted to delay the filling of the landfill through acts of vandalism. Two or three people, never identified, trespassed into the site and slashed multiple holes in the liner of the landfill. Concerned Citizens about PCBs spokesperson Joyce Lubbers was asked about the vandalism, to which she responded that she was “saddened” by the news and did not comment on any potential connection to the Concerned Citizens group. The vandalism delayed soil from arriving at the landfill until September 15th, however, it increased security and law enforcement around the site. The state felt the pressure from public distrust and protest and therefore made it publicly known that they had a contingency plan in place, and further conflict should be prevented.[31]
Protests mimicked those conducted during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. Governor Hunt said there were “no alternatives” for other landfill sites after Concerned Citizens made additional appeals to stop the landfill. In preparation, 230-300 protestors gathered together at the Warren County courthouse. Ken Ferrucino led the protest meeting and encouraged nonviolent protest, mirroring the philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement. White protestors relied heavily on black protestors to gain public awareness and connect with Civil Rights leaders nationally. Concerned Citizens for PCBs participating in the protests stood in front of the trucks carrying soil into the landfill. This physical demonstration symbolized the potential threat to life that the landfill displayed. Ken Ferrucino was arrested multiple times for impeding traffic, among many others.[32] Protest signs included “We care about our future! Don’t harm the lives of generations to come” and “We care too!! Warren County Youth.” Young people of Warren County played a large role in the protests, as they were the individuals inheriting the environmental conditions.
Figure 2. Black and White 35mm Roll Film 0384: Warren County: Afton: PCB landfill protest, 15 September 1982: Frame 14a. Photograph from Jerome Friar Photographic Collection, September 15, 1982. Afton, North Carolina. Collection number P0090 [33]
Along with coverage of the protests, the Warren Record printed articles and letters from the Governor, appearing to downplay the environmental and civil rights issues going on in Warren County. Heman Clark issued, as the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, “An Open Letter To Residents of Warren County.” The letter addressed common questions that the public had about the landfill. Clark insisted that any public apprehension at the time stemmed from “incomplete, misinformed, or misinterpreted information.” Governor Hunt’s name was also attached to the letter as a sign of approval. Considering this letter was published in the Warren Record the same day the paper covered protest activity around the landfill, it appeared that the state was attempting to increase its public appeal. Heman Clark assured that the PCB landfill would not be used for any other hazardous wastes “now or at a later date.” The Concerned Citizens for PCBs did not believe this promise and they felt assured that if the state won and the landfill was completed, other hazardous waste landfills would spread around the state. Ken Ferrucino used this fear to empower the protestors. “We will have to fight here…We have to stop it here or it will proliferate throughout the state of North Carolina,” Ferrucino expressed to the meeting of protestors. In regards to the decision to house the landfill in Warren County, Clark doubled down on the claim that “technical criteria” were the basis for the site selection and for “sound waste management.”[34]
In the editorial section entitled “Racism Not A Factor,” an article with no cited author wrote that “For nearly 50 years transformer oil laced with PCBs has been scattered over Warren County and into its food chain, water and the fatty tissues of most of us, with what harm remains to be seen.” Not only was the author minimizing the real, harmful effects of hazardous chemicals to reduce public fear, but they further denied the possibility of environmental racism by calling Civil Rights leaders “self-seeking.” The article villainized protestors by calling their efforts a “minor drama” and stating that anyone who causes unlawful resistance to the landfill is doing a disservice to North Carolina as a whole. Establishing the landfill in Warren County was an act of general welfare and it should be respected. The author looked at the protestor’s environmental concerns with a narrow scope and diminished their cause.
The editorial section also denied the perceived connection between Love Canal and Warren County, pointing direct blame at Lois Gibbs, the leader of the Love Canal crisis. In another anonymous article, Gibbs is quoted as “Ten years from now, you’ll [the citizens of Warren County] be the recipients of cancer and sickness. Your dump’s not that different from Love Canal, except that you have the ability to stop it.” They saw Gibbs as a perpetuator of protest and doing more harm than good for Warren County. Again, the press and the state were trying to gain public support by name-calling the PCB protests, discrediting their beliefs, and distancing themselves away from the nationally-known Love Canal.[35]
Post Protest
Even after the Warren County landfill was capped, activism around the emerging concept of “environmental racism” continued. The efforts of Reverend Benjamin Chavis and other Warren County protests encouraged the United Church of Christ (UCC) to fund a research project on the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of communities near hazardous waste sites. This 1987 report, titled ‘Toxic Waste and Race’, explicitly states that the environmental movement thus far had been white and middle-class, neglecting major demographics.
Race was proven to be the most significant variable in the national pattern of where commercial hazardous waste sites were located. The average minority percentage in communities with one commercial hazardous waste facility was twice the average percentage in those without. When examining uncontrolled toxic waste sites, three out of every five black and Hispanic Americans lived within close proximity. Based on the findings within the report, the Commission for Racial Justice through the UCC urged the “President of the United States to issue an executive order mandating federal agencies to consider the impact of current policies and regulations on racial and ethnic communities.”
Conclusion
By comparing Warren County to the environmental foundations established at Love Canal, racial discrimination and its relationship with hazardous waste placement and pollution are proven to be strong. Love Canal demonstrated how environmental hazards can negatively affect a population, soil the reputation of the government, create substantial expenses, and require many rehabilitation resources. Warren County demonstrates how government systems project environmental hazards towards politically weak, financially poor communities of color to prevent citizen resistance and government responsibility and accountability regarding human rights. Considering that the events of Love Canal and Warren County overlapped in history, the truth of Love Canal surfaced first. The state of North Carolina appeared to have weaponized PCB waste and the serious health effects that were occurring in Love Canal against the citizens of Warren County. The Concerned Citizens for PCBs and their initiatives sparked further research into the correlation between race and environmental hazards, proving that government systems have continuously weaponized hazardous waste against minority communities. The Love Canal crisis solidified the government’s role in public and environmental health protection, while Warren County underscored the government’s discriminatory position within that role.
Environmental justice initiatives continued into the 1990s and 2000s, focusing primarily on environmental hazards and their relationship to historically marginalized communities. President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations in 1994. The order was meant to identify problems and develop solutions surrounding environmental justice initiatives. An Interagency Working Group (IWG) was developed on environmental justice and it is chaired by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator. The order issued a governmental responsibility and authority to alleviate and prevent situations of environmental racism.[36] However, the effectiveness of this order was diminished by ongoing environmental justice cases like “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana and Flint, Michigan.[37]
Based on the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, the environmental justice movement had to organize on a global scale and advance its goals toward an equitable environment. The Principles of Environmental Justice were established. Starting with a familiar preamble, “WE, THE PEOPLE OF color, gathered together…to begin to build a national and international movement of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and communities,” the summit makes an international call to action for equal environmental health. The principles include recognizing the sacredness of Mother Earth, demanding public policy for mutual respect and justice for all people, and the right to ethical and responsible land use, among others.[38] Considering Love Canal’s great success at establishing government responsibility for public health, Warren County had a stronger legacy promoting research, organizations, legislation, and public awareness around what environmental justice came to be. This legacy does not mean environmental justice issues are now recognized or solved in full, but it demonstrates a more powerful and effective movement. Warren County also signifies the intersection of environmentalism and Civil Rights, while demonstrating racial cohesion towards a common goal.
The breakout events at Love Canal demonstrated the tragic results of toxic waste pollution in the environment, as well as political activism and social advocacy for change. Using these events as a basis for Warren County, and the future reports on racial discrimination and the environment, shows how environmental rights and access to public health have been provided as a privilege to majority communities. Government actors and systems have shown a pattern of implementing hazardous waste in politically disadvantaged communities.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Brown, Michael. “Love Canal and the Poisoning of America.” Atlantic, December 1979. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1979/12/love-canal-and-the-poisoning-of-america/376297/.
Brown, Michael. “Love Canal, U.S.A.” New York Times, January 21, 1979. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/21/archives/love-canal-usa-love-canal-usa.html?smid=url-share.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. June 30, 1962. London: Penguin Books, in association with Hamish Hamilton, 2015.
Chatham County 1980 Census of Population and Housing – Characteristics of Persons/North Carolina, 1980, North Carolina Census Data: 1960-1980, State Library of North Carolina, North Carolina, https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p15012coll4/id/821.
Clinton, William. Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59, no. 32 (February 11, 1994). https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf.
Congressional Research Service. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements., April 1, 2013. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31905.pdf.
Ecumenical Task Force Chronology. A History of Disaster – A Chronology of Events, September 17, 1981 – August 18, 1984. University of Buffalo Archives, Buffalo, NY. https://library.buffalo.edu/archives/lovecanal/collections/pdfs/etf_chron1.pdf.
Exchange Project. Real People – Real Stories: Afton, NC (Warren County). North Carolina: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2006.
First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. Principles of Environmental Justice., October 24-27, 1991. Washington, D.C.
Gibbs, Lois and Sharon M. Livesey. “ORGANIZING AND LEADING THE GRASSROOTS: An Interview with Lois Gibbs, Love Canal Homeowners’ Association Activist, Founder of Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, and Executive Director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice,” Organization & Environment 16, no. 4 (December 2003): 488-503.
Katz, Cheryl. Interview with Deborah Ferruccio and Rev. Willie T. Ramey III. Pollution, Poverty, and People of Color: Birth of the Movement. Environmental Health News. June 12, 2012.
Nixon, Richard. American Presidency Project. Richard Nixon: Statement About the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. January 1, 1970. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Office of the Governor. Chatham County 1980 Census of Population and Housing – Characteristics of Persons/North Carolina. 1980. North Carolina Census Data: 1960-1980. State Library of North Carolina, North Carolina. https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p15012coll4/id/821.
United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. New York: Commission for Racial Justice, 1987. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1310/ML13109A339.pdf.
US Congress, House. Environmental Justice Act of 1992. H. Res. 2105. 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (May 12, 1993). Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2105?s=1&r=61
US Congress, House and Senate. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 91st Cong., 1982. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-NEPA.pdf.
US General Accounting Office, Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills And Their Correlation With Racial And Economic Status Of Surrounding Communities, June 1, 1983.
Warren Record. North Carolina Newspapers. North Carolina Digital Heritage Center, Warrenton, North Carolina. https://www.digitalnc.org/newspapers/the-warren-record-warrenton-n-c/?news_year=1982#skip.
“55 Arrested in Protest at a Toxic Dump in Carolina.” New York Times, September 16, 1982. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/16/us/55-arrested-in-protest-at-a-toxic-dump-in-carolina.html.
Secondary Sources
Andrews, Richard N. L. “Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves.” In Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy, 422-433. Yale University Press, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvwrm3ww.22.
Andrews, Richard N. L. “Toward a National Environmental Policy.” In Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy, 422-433. Yale University Press, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvwrm3ww.22.
Blum, Elizabeth. “Environmental Justice.” In The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture: Volume 8: Environment, edited by Martin Melosi, 58-62. University of North Carolina Press, 2007. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469616605_melosi.14.
Center for Health, Environment. “Love Canal.” https://chej.org/about-us/story/love-canal.
Di Chiro, Giovanna. “Environmental Justice.” In Keywords for Environmental Studies, edited by Joni Adamson, William A. Gleason, and David N. Pellow, 100-105. NYU Press, 2016. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15zc5kw.36.
Dorceta, Taylor E. “Toxic Exposure: Landmark Cases in the South and the Rise of Environmental Justice Activism.” In Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility, 6-32. New York, NY: University Press, 2014.
EPA. “LOVE CANAL NIAGARA FALLS, NY.” Superfund Site. Last modified April 21, 2022. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0201290#:~:text=In%20September%202004%2C%20the%20EPA,of%20the%20Love%20Canal%20site.
EPA. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Superfund. Last modified February 14, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.
Gensburg, Lenore J., Cristian Pantea, Edward Fitzgerald, Alice Stark, Syni-An Hwang, and Nancy Kim. “Mortality Among Former Love Canal Residents.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 2 (February 2009): 209-216. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25434927.
Mart, Michelle. “Breakup? The Cultural Impact of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.” In Pesticides, A Love Story: America’s Enduring Embrace of Dangerous Chemicals, 57-82. University Press of Kansas, 2015. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ckpbk2.6.
Mascarenhas, Michael., Grattet, Ryken., and Mege, Kathleen., “Toxic Waste and Race in Twenty-First Century America.” Environment and Society: Advances in Research 12, (2021): 108-126. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2021.120107.
McGurty, Eileen M. “From NIMBY to Civil Rights: The Origins of the Environmental Justice Movement.” Environmental History 2, no. 3 (July 1997): 301-323. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3985352.
Rinne, Julia C. and Dinkins, Carol E. “Environmental Justice: Merging Environmental Law and Ethics.” Natural Resources & Environment 25, no. 3 (Winter 2011): 3-7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25802054.
Rome, Adam. “‘Give Earth a Change’: The Environmental Movement and the Sixties.” Journal of American History 90, no. 2 (September 2003): 525-553. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3659443.
Stranges, John B., Matthew M. Troia, and Claudette E. Walck. “Limited Victory: Love Canal Reclaimed.” ICON: Journal of the International Committee for the History of Technology 23 (2017): 55-82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26454976.
Thomson, Jennifer. “Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal.” Journal of Social History 50, no. 1 (Fall 2016): 204-223. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43919922.
Young, Cole M. “Environmental Justice is Alive and Well.” Natural Resources & Environment 26, no. 1 (Summer 2011): 57-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23054906.
[1] A social movement that identifies unfair exposure of environmental hazards to communities of color and other marginalized groups
[2] DDT was one of the first modern synthetic insecticides in the 1940s. It was commonly used to prevent diseases carried by insects. High exposures to DDT induces vomiting, tremors, and seizures. It is considered a human carcinogen.
[3] Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962, (London: Penguin Books, in association with Hamish Hamilton, 2015).
[4] Adam Rome, “‘Give Earth a Change’: The Environmental Movement and the Sixties,” Journal of American History 90, no. 2 (September 2003): 525-553, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3659443.
[5] Richard Nixon, “Statement About the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” The American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara, January 1, 1970, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-about-the-national-environmental-policy-act-1969.
[6] A History of Disaster – A Chronology of Events, September 17, 1981 – August 18, 1984, Ecumenical Task Force Chronology, University of Buffalo Archives, Buffalo, NY, https://library.buffalo.edu/archives/lovecanal/collections/pdfs/etf_chron1.pdf.
[7] Love Canal Images.Half-buried and leaking hazardous waste containment tanks in Love Canal neighborhood of abandoned homes, Photograph, State University of New York at Buffalo, https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16694coll1/id/1355/rec/2.; “Love Canal, U.S.A.,” New York Times, January 21, 1979.
[8]A History of Disaster – A Chronology of Events, September 17, 1981 – August 18, 1984, Ecumenical Task Force Chronology, University of Buffalo Archives, Buffalo, NY, https://library.buffalo.edu/archives/lovecanal/collections/pdfs/etf_chron1.pdf.
[9] “Love Canal, U.S.A.,” New York Times, January 21, 1979.
[10] “Love Canal and the Poisoning of America,” Atlantic, December 1979.
[11] A History of Disaster – A Chronology of Events, September 17, 1981 – August 18, 1984, Ecumenical Task Force Chronology, University of Buffalo Archives, Buffalo, NY, https://library.buffalo.edu/archives/lovecanal/collections/pdfs/etf_chron1.pdf.
[12] Lois Gibbs and Sharon M. Livesey, “ORGANIZING AND LEADING THE GRASSROOTS: An Interview with Lois Gibbs, Love Canal Homeowners’ Association Activist, Founder of Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, and Executive Director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice,” Organization & Environment 16, no. 4 (December 2003): 488-503.
[13] Gibbs and Livesey, “ORGANIZING AND LEADING THE GRASSROOTS,” 488-503.
[14] Ecumenical Task Force, A History of Disaster – A Chronology of Events (New York, 1981-1984), 1-30.
[15] Gibbs and Livesey, “ORGANIZING AND LEADING THE GRASSROOTS,” 488-503.
[16] Love Canal Homeowners Association’s full-page newspaper ad (produced in response to Hooker’s ads) stating reasons why Love Canal victims need help from the government: ‘Ask those who really know’, October 1979, image, Love Canal Images, Penelope D. Ploughman Love Canal Collection, New York Heritage digital collections, https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16694coll1/id/1967/rec/1.
[17] Hooker Chemical Corporation’s full-page newspaper ad on Love Canal: ‘Let’s set the record straight’, May 22, 1979, image, Love Canal Images, Penelope D. Ploughman Love Canal Collection, New York Heritage digital collections, https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16694coll1/id/1961/rec/7.
[18] “Love Canal Niagara Falls, NY Cleanup Activities,” Superfund Site, United States Environmental Protection Agency, last modified April 21, 2022, https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0201290#:~:text=In%20September%202004%2C%20the%20EPA,of%20the%20Love%20Canal%20site.
[19] Jennifer Thomson, “Toxic Residents: Health and Citizenship at Love Canal,” Journal of Social History 50, no. 1 (Fall 2016): 204-223.
[20] Robert Burns and his two sons plead guilty in court. Robert Ward Jr. and his son, Robert Ward III, were charged with conspiracy and two counts of being an accessory before the fact. Robert III’s charges were later dropped.
[21] Taylor Dorceta, Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility, chapter 2.
[22] EPA, Superfund: CERCLA Overview: Superfund, Last modified February 14, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.
[23] Chatham County 1980 Census of Population and Housing – Characteristics of Persons/North Carolina, 1980, North Carolina Census Data: 1960-1980, State Library of North Carolina, North Carolina, https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p15012coll4/id/821.; “Real People – Real Stories: Afton, NC (Warren County),” Exchange Project, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, September 2006.
[24] Eileen Maura McGurty, “NIMBY to Civil Rights: The Origins of the Environmental Justice Movement,” Environmental History 2, no. 3 (July 1997): 301-323.; Elizabeth Blum, “Environmental Justice,” 2007.
[25] “Real People – Real Stories: Afton, NC (Warren County),” Exchange Project, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, September 2006.“Real People – Real Stories,” Exchange Project, September 2006.
[26] The 1971 Ford Pinto was known for fuel tank issues where any crash could set the fuel tank on fire and trap its occupants inside. The car went through a rushed design and building process.; “Real People – Real Stories: Afton, NC (Warren County),” Exchange Project, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, September 2006.
[27] Warren County v. State of North Carolina, 528 F. Supp. 276 (E.D.N.C. 1981).; “Construction Of Landfill For PCBs Begun At Afton,” Warren Record, June 2, 1982.
[28] “Construction Of Landfill” Warren Record, June 2, 1982.
[29] “Disagreement On PCBs,” Warren Record, June 30, 1982.; “KEEP PCB AND TOXIC WASTE OUT OF WARREN COUNTY,” Warren Record, July 7, 1982.
[30] “Standing Room Crowd Hears PCB Dump Lambasted,” Warren Record, July 14, 1982.
[31] “Vandalism Delays Start of PCB Dumping Project,” Warren Record, August 25, 1982.; “Liner Is Required At PCB Dump Site,” Warren Record, September 1, 1982.
[32] “Protest Over PCB Continuing Here,” Warren Record, September 29, 1982.
[33] Jerome Friar Photographic Collection, 1978-2010, Black and White 35mm Roll Film 0384: Warren County: Afton: PCB landfill protest, 15 September 1982: Frame 14a, 35mm film, Digital North Carolina Collection Photographic Archives, https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/dig_nccpa/id/4670.
[34] “An Open Letter To Residents Of Warren County,” Warren Record, September 15, 1982.
[35] “No ‘Love Canal’,” Warren Record, September 22, 1982.
[36] Executive Order 12898, President Bill Clinton, 1994.; Julia C. Rinne and Carol E. Dinkins, “Environmental Justice: Merging Environmental Law and Ethics,” Natural Resources & Environment 25, no. 3 (Winter 2011), https://www.jstor.org/stable/25802054.
[37] Taylor E. Dorceta, “Toxic Exposure: Landmark Cases in the South and the Rise of Environmental Justice Activism,” in Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility (New York: University Press, 2014).
[38] First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, “Principles of Environmental Justice,” October 24-27, 1991, Washington, D.C.