Bipartisan agreement elusive on environmental justice bill

October 02, 2020

A hearing yesterday on sweeping environmental justice legislation laid bare the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans on how to craft new federal policies to help the most disadvantaged communities.

It also illustrated the remoteness of the possibility that the Democrats' bill will have robust, if any, Republican support, as Democratic champions hope to advance the measure early in the next Congress on the assumption they will retain control of the House.

The House Natural Resources Committee yesterday held a hearing on H.R. 5986, the "Environmental Justice for All Act," which would provide more protections to those affected by pollution and environmental health and safety hazards, which tend to be lower-income communities of color.

It would require federal agencies to consider community health impacts during permitting decisions; codify into law the federal government's existing environmental justice initiatives; and impose new fees on oil, gas and coal companies to fund local transitions away from fossil fuel economies.

The bill would also reverse a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that has made it harder for private citizens to pursue legal remedies when they are victims of actions that disproportionately harm poor, non-white communities.

Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the lead architect of the legislation, called "the lack of environmental justice for everyone ... one of the most egregious inequities under current law."

Republicans didn't necessarily disagree, but they strongly argued that Grijalva's framework would impose untenable regulatory burdens and harm the people they are trying to help.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) criticized the bill's mandate that all federal agencies develop a "community impact report" before issuing new permits for projects in struggling communities.

This requirement, Gosar said, would ultimately lead to the delayed delivery of things like broadband expansion, affordable housing and renewable energy technology to the people who need it most.

"Implementing this legislation will cause the communities at most risk to miss out on opportunities," he argued.

'Energy poverty'

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.) vocalized a concern among Republicans that the bill's bias against oil and gas as an energy source would hurt constituents who rely on the industry for their livelihoods.

Derrick Hollie, the president of Reaching America, a nonprofit working on the social issues affecting Black communities, said the "Environmental Justice for All Act" would increase "energy poverty" that is already more rampant due to the lockdown orders and flailing economy amid the coronavirus pandemic.

"With this virus, it would not be prudent to eliminate safe and reliable resources like oil and gas for unproven and unreliable renewable sources, certainly not right now," said Hollie, who was invited to testify at the committee hearing by the Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee.

Hollie threw his support behind a new bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), that was yesterday being touted as a conservative alternative to the "Environmental Justice for All Act."

Hern's bill, the "Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act," would aim to ensure that new federal policies don't prevent vulnerable communities from accessing affordable sources of energy.

Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) railed against a provision of the Democratic bill that would continue to impose a cap on how much revenue Gulf Coast states can receive from offshore oil and gas drilling projects — revenue Graves said would be best put toward local health care, infrastructure and education.

"Here we are talking about discrimination, racial injustice, and this bill we're talking about absolutely makes it worse," said Graves, his volume rising. "Who does that?"

Robert Bullard, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University who is considered the "father" of the environmental justice movement, said it was more nuanced than that.

"Let me just say that there are so many layers of discrimination in states you're talking about that have nothing to do with oil and gas, per se," he said.

'Unacceptable'

Some committee Democrats chose to directly engage with Republicans, and the Republican witness, about their opposition to the bill.

"I am somewhat stunned and surprised by the comments on the other side of the aisle about our bill," said Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), Grijalva's partner in crafting the legislation.

"Our bill actually went to the folks who are affected by environmental justice and asked them, 'What do you need? How can we empower you?'" McEachin went on, addressing Grijalva.

"You and I, together with the environmental justice communities ... rejected the traditional D.C. way of imposing our will on folks and instead are trying to work this from the bottom up ... we didn't write it; it was written by the people and for the people."

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) took offense at Hollie's suggestions that the federal government must continue to support fossil fuels out of some sense of anxiety about the accessibility of the alternative.

"Our addiction to fossil fuels is literally killing us," he said. "Communities of color are bearing the worst impacts of that. Arguing the only answer is to make fossil fuels cheaper and more abundant is like the heroin addict who thinks finding cheaper heroin is the only way to keep buying groceries and pay the rent."

Grijalva said, "We have our work cut out ahead of us on this bill," adding that opponents would make "efforts to change the narrative and try to make [the bill] something else."

Other Democrats focused their questions, comments and observations to their party's three witnesses.

Alongside Bullard was Mildred McClain, co-founder and executive director of the Harambee House/Citizens for Environmental Justice.

Also on hand was Andrea Vidaurre, co-founder of People's Collective for Environmental Justice — a network of community members of the Inland Empire region of Southern California, which shoulders the burden of intense pollution.

"Thousands of trucks drive by our homes and communities every day ... warehouses are being built within 70 feet of people's homes," Vidaurre told the committee, adding that local children are being born with underdeveloped lung capacity and developing asthma because of the toxic air. "Protections that would safeguard our health just don't exist."

Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.), another so-sponsor of the "Environmental Justice for All Act," spoke with urgency about the need to provide resources for, and legal recourse to, at-risk communities.

"The majority Latino and African-American district that I have, almost 90%, is sandwiched between highways, refineries and urban oil drilling. As a result, my neighbors and our community members can't breathe," she said.

"It's unacceptable. We cannot settle for anything less than a clean and safe environment for all people — not more half-measures of green-washed solutions."


By:  Emma Dumain
Source: E&E News