EPA Brownfields: Contaminated by Discriminatory Practices
Hickory, North Carolina represents success in the eyes of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After struggling to redevelop approximately forty abandoned properties, a series of EPA grants totaling close to one-million dollars allowed the town to assess, plan, and take action, according to one recent report. Today, Hickory continues to fix up vacant properties throughout the city, further enhancing their already colorful, tree-lined streets. Home to art galleries, luxury furniture stores, and Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory is what one entry in the North Carolina History Projects describes as an “All-American” place to live. Before attaining any EPA funding, Hickory received several awards for outstanding community involvement and problem solving. Looking deeper, the population is 75% white according to the 2010 census, with that percentage on the rise since 2000. Income-wise, the town is firmly middle-class, with a sizable population. All in all, residents deem life in Hickory “well crafted”.
So, if a town like Hickory has so much political, cultural and economic success, does it really need all those funds from the EPA, especially when up to one million other hazardous sites remain nationwide? The EPA defines a site as a “brownfield” if it is an abandoned and neglected piece of land that may look unsightly and present public health issues. The redevelopment of brownfields faces complications from the presence of potential pollutants or hazardous waste. Needless to say, the EPA Brownfields Program provides a crucial service, especially considering that thousands of new brownfields are discovered annually. However, every picturesque turnaround ignores thousands of less-fortunate towns with unsafe drinking water. Every “loft-style” apartment building overlooks many dangerous backyards. And, every happy Hickory resident leaves countless other homeowners struggling to attain their own “All-American” haven. Scholars such as Matthew Dull and Kris Wenstedt argue that too many funds go to large, middle-class jurisdictions while the EPA continually marginalizes poor, rural and minority neighborhoods that could greatly improve with small grants for educational programs. It’s clear that the system deserves critique: the funds exist, but need different allocation.
Efforts to overhaul brownfields began in the 1980s, with the transformation of the US economy from manufacturing to service-oriented industries. According to Dull and Wenstedt, this transformation left behind vacant, contaminated properties. As the EPA notes, brownfield dangers may include pesticide, mining waste, petroleum, and vacant buildings. What this means for many neighborhoods is that children must pass chemical dumps on the way to school, and that pesticide-filled groundwater can make families sick. Shovini Dasgupta of Environmental Practice asserts that brownfields “present opportunities to revitalize the environment, provide new jobs, increase the tax base, control urban sprawl, and renew obsolete civil infrastructure.” With the growing number of brownfield sites in the United States, one might presume that developers would constantly get to work. Unfortunately, numerous barriers frustrate these efforts, leaving the number of untouched properties to grow.
Examine the US brownfield infestation with this interactive map.
Presently, the primary initiative overseeing brownfields is the EPA Brownfields Program, which gives grants to applicants chosen from a competitive applicant pool. Since 1993, Dull and Wenstedt record that the organization has awarded nearly one billion dollars to various causes. No single grants are larger than $200,000, meaning the awarded amount usually accounts for a small portion of the need. Even as the funds are frequently insufficient, the EPA’s spending remains misdirected. For example, in an NBC News investigation of brownfield management, the authors of the study noted:
The shortcomings [of the EPA program] are due to limited funds, a lack of federal oversight, seemingly endless waits for approvals, and dense bureaucratic processes. These issues make it difficult for poor and sparsely populated neighborhoods to compete against larger and middle-class communities that have the means to figure them out.
As the EPA itself admits, a small minority of funding goes to jurisdictions with less than 50,000 residents. Despite EPA denial, poor, rural and minority communities are significantly less likely to receive attention. And, while one could easily blame the problem on various factors associated with these less privileged communities, statistics make it clear that the agency regularly dismisses them for more Hickory-like applicants.
As shown in the figure below, taken from Dull and Wenstedt’s environmental equity survey, non-white applicants and applicants in poverty have notably lower probabilities of receiving any EPA assistance. Even with all other independent variables set to their averages, the top decile of the Poverty variable had a 7% lower chance of receiving aid (26% vs. 33%). The non-white demographic, while having slightly more equity than those in poverty, also fell noticeably below the average award-reception rate. Other studies, including the NBC News investigation, corroborate the observed inequities. For those seeking help outside the large, middle-class bubble, the odds stand against them before an application is even filled out.
Ironically, when the EPA heavily concentrates funds in particular, privileged areas, the given amount still barely contributes to the rebuilding process. Due to the maximum grant size, the EPA may only fund 2–3% of a project’s need. Ultimately, most redevelopments are not completed. A $200,000 grant is far too small to make a genuine impact on total cost reduction (certain projects may cost ten million dollars or more). Conversely, $200,000 is more than enough to establish various instructional systems. Reallocation of EPA funding to support education and awareness-focused programs in many more communities would greatly improve the effects of the brownfield initiative. In her participation survey, Lucie Laurian (Urban and Regional Planning Professor at The University of Iowa) showed that most non-participation by locals came from not even knowing about the program’s existence. After Laurian analyzed the process of coping with toxic waste sites in rural North Carolina, she simplified the most important tasks down to publicizing meetings, asserting program benefits, reaching out to low income segments of the population, and emphasizing the role of participation — all of which can be done with non-expensive awareness and education programs. What this means for the EPA is that funding instructional events would mobilize locals to begin solving the brownfield problems they face regularly. Which sounds more productive — spending $200,000 to make a possibly insignificant difference in one community, or forty different communities each getting $5,000 to assemble real means for change?
Thriving reforms in Missouri and Louisiana show the promise of switching from oversized, exclusive grants to widespread environmental education. A Missouri committee complemented their brownfield program with information and networking seminars. The information sessions explained the goals and motives to otherwise unaware citizens, while the networking sessions procured plans and connections between property owners and developers. Locals gained motivation and understanding, while developers overcame stigma and liability concerns. After holding three programs over six years, brownfield redevelopment skyrocketed in St. Louis and Northern Missouri, even alongside the economic crisis of 2009. Similarly, information sessions in Monroe, Louisiana saw large success in redeveloping brownfields with minimal funding. The meetings engaged formerly marginalized citizens and allowed developers to recognize the potential profitability involved. Sure, the developers in both these cases had to pay large sums not covered by grants, but the community involvement and stigma/liability reduction fostered by the adjusted programs reduced overall costs tremendously.
To this day, the EPA refuses to release data regarding its funding to regions with large minority populations and high poverty rates. However, numerous studies prove the negative correlation between these statistics and the likelihood of receiving a grant (not to mention the disregard for rural areas as well). In its current state, the EPA Brownfields Program reaches too few communities in need, spends too much money on the wrong ventures, and disregards crucial education programs. Solely focusing on the Hickories of the world is making the situation worse. According to Tufts University professor Justin Hollander, the problem is too vast and too expensive to be addressed in the current fashion. While large, middle class towns may be improving after receiving four or more $200,000 grants, poor, rural and minority communities remain ignored with no funding at all. The EPA doesn’t need to build million-dollar properties for a small group of already fortunate areas. Instead, the EPA should empower groups nationwide to eradicate the brownfields that plague communities of every type. Despite claiming a stance against racial and class-based discrimination, until the EPA Brownfields Program is itself redeveloped, the program will remain contaminated by unfair and inefficient practices.
