Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T00:42:39.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Choice and Sacrifice: Constructions of Community Consent in Reactive Air Pollution Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Noga Morag Levine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The author examines the images of community that lie behind the Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to extend proactive, uniform regulation of the Clean Air Act to the problem of local industrial odor. Under this decision, the regulation of such odors remains dependent on complaints and local initiatives rather than on proactive governmental intervention. The legitimacy and economic logic of the reactive structures the agency endorsed rely on two assumptions: (1) industrial odors are an aesthetic annoyance rather than a toxic threat; and (2) local environmental conditions reflect conscious decisionmaking by homogenous local communities as to trade-offs, and preferences for environmental quality will differ among these communities. The author uses three case studies to cast doubt on the validity of these assumptions; they demonstrate in particular the mythical character of the “community” posited by the EPA as a foundation for viable reactive enforcement. Indeed, to trigger enforcement, it has been necessary to undertake heroic organizational efforts and to create novel forms of social groupings hardly characterizable as “communities.”

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 28 , Issue 5: Symposium: Community and Identity in Sociolegal Studies , 1994 , pp. 1035 - 1077
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Research for this article was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Research (No. SBR-9310535) and the University of California Chancelor's Dissertation-Year award. This article could not have been written without the cooperation and help extended to me by members of the citizen groups and staff at the air pollution agencies I studied. I am also grateful for many helpful comments from Cary Coglianese,john Dwyer, Malcolm Feeley, Robert Post, and Martin Shapiro. For constructive and detailed responses to several recent drafts, special thanks are due to Robert Kagan, Michael Lipsett, Elizabeth Mertz, and most of all Jonathan Levine. Remaining errors are of course my own. Earlier versions were presented in the 1992 and 1994 meetings of the Law and Society Association.

References

REFERENCES

Bachrach, Peter, & Baratz, Morton S. (1962) “The Two Faces of Power,” 56 American Political Science Rev. 947.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene, & Ragan, Robert A. (1982) Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Barger, Brian (1993) “People Say Procter & Gamble's Pulp Mill Makes Them Sick,” Cable News Network Transcript #388-5 (April 20).Google Scholar
Bendix, Selina (1990) “Toxicological Analysis of Chemicals Used at Pacific Steel Casting Company.” Report prepared for City of Berkeley Department of Health & Human Services, November 1990.Google Scholar
Best, Arthur, & Andreasen, Alan R. (1977) “Consumer Response to Unsatisfactory Purchases: A Survey of Perceiving Defects, Voicing Complaints, and Obtaining Redress,” 11 Law & Society Rev. 701.Google Scholar
Boatwright, Dan (1992) “Cities Should Consider Air Quality in Planning,” West County Times, 14 May, p. 11 A.Google Scholar
Black, Henry Campbell (1990) Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Black, Donald J. (1973) “The Mobilization of Law,” 2 J. of Legal Studies 125.Google Scholar
Bone, Robert G. (1986) “Normative Theory and Legal Doctrine in American Nuisance Law: 1850–1920,” 59 Southern California Law Rev. 1101.Google Scholar
Brion, Denis J. (1991) Essential Industry and the NIMBY Phenomenon. New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Bryner, Gary C. (1993) Blue Skies, Green Politics: The Clean Air Act of 1990. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Bullard, Robert D. (1990) Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Bumiller, Kristen (1988) The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido, & Bobbit, Philip (1978) Tragic Choices. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Chan, Christina S. (1992) “Pacific Steel Casting Becomes Better Neighbor: Solution to Plant Odor Emission Problem,” 120 Foundry Management & Technology 26 (Aug.).Google Scholar
Chard, Leslie F., III. (1991) Comment: “The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments: Section 112 Comes of Age,” 59 Univ. of Cincinnati Law Rev. 1253.Google Scholar
Chaset, Laurence G. (1987) “Enforcement Mechanisms for Resolving Community Odor Problems: A Legal Viewpoint.” Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, New York (21–26 June).Google Scholar
Cole, Luke W. (1992) “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection: The Need for Environmental Poverty Law,” 19 Ecology Law Q. 619.Google Scholar
Copley International Corporation (CIC) (1970) “National Survey of the Odor Problem: Phase I of a Study of the Social and Economic Impact of Odors.” Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration. Springfield, VA: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific & Technical Information.Google Scholar
Copley International Corporation (1971) “A Study of the Social and Economic Impact of Odors: Phase II.” Final Report Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Copley International Corporation (1973) “A Study of the Social and Economic Impact of Odors: Phase III, Development and Evaluation of a Model Odor Control Ordinance.” Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Crank, John P. (1994) “Watchman and Community: Myth and Institutionalization in Policing,” 28 Law & Society Rev. 325.Google Scholar
Crenson, Matthew A. (1971) The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Crowe, Patricia Ward (1978) “Complainant Reactions to the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination,” 12 Law & Society Rev. 217.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dwyer, John P. (1990) “The Pathology of Symbolic Legislation,” 17 Ecology Law Q. 233.Google Scholar
Eads, George (1985) “The Confusion of Goals and Instruments: The Explicit Consideration of Cost in Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” in Gibson, M., ed., To Breathe Freely: Risk, Consent, and Air. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Edelen, Earl W., & Clark, Howard L. (1951) “Odor Control in Los Angeles County,” 1 (3) Air Repair 1.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. (1973) “Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls,” 40 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 681.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. (1979) “Nuisance Law: Corrective Justice and Its Utilitarian Constraints,” 8 J. of Legal Studies 49.Google Scholar
Felstiner, William L. F., Abel, Richard L., & Sarat, Austin (1980–81) “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming …,” 15 Law & Society Rev. 631.Google Scholar
Management, Foundry & Technology, (1992) “Metal Casting Industry Census Guide.” Cleveland: Penton Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Alan Jay (1988) “Toward Sensible Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,” 63 New York Univ. Law Rev. 612.Google Scholar
Graham, John D. (1985) “The Failure of Agency-Forcing: The Regulation of Airborne Carcinogens under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,” 1985 Duke Law J. 100.Google Scholar
Grinder, R. Kale (1980) “The Battle for Clean Air: The Smoke Problem in Post–Civil War America,” in Melosi, M. V., ed., Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870–1930. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Charles W. (1957) “Odor Pollution Problems from the Control Officials' Viewpoint,” 7 J. of the Air Pollution Control Association 56.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith (1984) Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, James A. Jr., & Pearson, Richard N. (1978) “Implementing Federal Environmental Policies: The Limits of Aspirational Commands,” 78 Columbia Law Rev. 1429.Google Scholar
Hoye, David (1993) “Air of Discontent: Residents Say Odors Fouling Neighborhood Near Foundry,” Phoenix Gazette, 31 March, Metro sec, p. B1.Google Scholar
Hubert, Cynthia (1993) “Fuming Residents Say Industrial Odors Are Ruining Rocklin,” Sacramento Bee, 23 Oct., sec. 1 (Metro), p. B1.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. (1975) Clean Air: The Policies and Politics of Pollution Control. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Juergensmeyer, Julian Conrad (1967) “Control of Air Pollution through the Assertion of Private Rights,” 1967 Duke Law J. 1126.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. (1994) “Regulatory Enforcement,” in Rosenbloom, D. H. & Schwartz, R. D., eds., Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
Klockars, Carl B. (1991) “The Rhetoric of Community Policing,” in Klockars, C. B. & Mastrofski, S. D., eds., Thinking about Policing. 2d Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Krier, James E., & Gillette, Clayton P. (1985) “The Un-Easy Case for Technological Optimism,” 84 Michigan Law Rev. 405.Google Scholar
Krier, James E., & Ursin, Edmund (1977) Pollution and Policy: A Case Essay on California and Federal Experience with Motor Vehicle Air Pollution, 1940–1975. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, Paul M. (1976) “Nineteenth Century Anti-Entrepreneurial Nuisance Injunctions—Avoiding the Chancellor,” 17 William & Mary Law Rev. 621.Google Scholar
Laitos, Jan G. (1975) “The Social and Economic Roots of Judge-Made Air Pollution Policy in Wisconsin,” 58 Marquette Law Rev. 465.Google Scholar
La Pierre, D. Bruce (1977) “Technology-Forcing and Federal Environmental Protection Statutes,” 62 Iowa Law Rev. 771.Google Scholar
Laxson, Toni K. (1993) “Plant's Neighbors Report Foul Odors: Hazardous-Waste Firm in East Texas Denies That Smell Is Nuisance,” Dallas Morning News, 28 July, News sec, p. 30A.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Richard J. (1993) “Pursuing ‘Environmental Justice’: The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection,” 87 Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 787.Google Scholar
Lee, Steven H. (1993) “Tension in the Air: Battle over Feedlot's Odor Puts Dairy Industry on Trial,” Dallas Morning News, 30 May, Business sec, p. 1H.Google Scholar
Lewin, Jeff L. (1990) “Boomer and the American Law of Nuisance: Past, Present, and Future,” 54 Albany Law Rev. 189.Google Scholar
Lindvall, Thomas, & Radford, Edward P., eds. (1973) “Measurement of Annoyance Due to Exposure to Environmental Factors,” 6 Environmental Research 1.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, Kay (1993) “Chemical Warfare; Winona Wants Waste Plant Shut Down, Citing Health Ills,” Dallas Morning News, 7 March, Texas & Southwest sec, p. 47A.Google Scholar
Mayhew, Leon H. (1968) Law and Equal Opportunity: A Study of the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel, & Morell, David (1990) “The ‘NIMBY’ Syndrome: Facility Siting and the Failure of Democratic Discourse,” in Vig, N.J. & Kraft, M. E., eds., Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Mohai, Paul, & Bryant, Bunyan (1992) “Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence,” in Bryant, P., Bunyan, B., & Mohai, P., eds., Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Nader, Laura (1980a) “Alternatives to the American Judicial System,” in Nader 1980b.Google Scholar
Nader, Laura, ed. (1980b) No Access to Law: Alternatives to the American Judicial System. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nader, Laura, & Shugart, Christopher (1980) “Old Solutions for Old Problems,” in Nader 1980b.Google Scholar
National Research Council Committee on Odors from Stationary & Sources, Mobile (1979) Odors from Stationary and Mobile Sources. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nelson, Bryce (1967) “Air Pollution: The Teds' Move to Abate Idaho Pulp Mill Stench,” 157 Science 1018.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur (1971) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Petriko, Bryan K. (1993) “Conducting an Air Emissions Inventory,” 121 Foundry Management & Technology 34 (Nov.).Google Scholar
Pollack, Lawrence W. (1968) “Legal Boundaries of Air Pollution Control—State and Local Legislative Purpose and Techniques,” 33 Law & Contemporary Problems 331 (Spring).Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. (1980) Community Power and Political Theory. 2d enlarged ed. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Frank J. (1991) “LULUs and Their Blockage: The Nature of the Problem, the Outline of the Solutions,” in DiMento, J. & Graymer, L., eds., Confronting Regional Challenges. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
Reiss, Albert J. Jr. (1971) The Police and the Public. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Reitze, Arnold W. Jr. (1991) “A Century of Air Pollution Control Law: What's Worked; What's Failed; What Might Work,” 21 Environmental Law 1549.Google Scholar
Robertson, Peter D., & Vanderver, Timothy A. Jr. (1992) “Tide III—Air Toxics,” in A. Vanderver, T. Jr., ed., Clean Air Law and Regulation. Washington, DC: BNA.Google Scholar
Rodgers, William H. Jr. (1986) Environmental Law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Rollenhagen, Mark (1994) “Lawsuit Seeks to Clear the Air; Ravenna Families Complain of Odor,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6 May, Metro sec, p. 1B.Google Scholar
Scheinman, Kate (1990) “The Battle for West Berkeley,” East Bay Guardian, Sept., p. 29.Google Scholar
Schoenbrod, David (1983) “Goals Statutes or Rules Statutes: The Case of the Clean Air Act,” 30 UCLA Law Rev. 740.Google Scholar
Scholz, John T., & Wei, Feng Heng (1986) “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System,” 80 American Political Science Rev. 1249.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christopher (1983) “Foreword: A Decade of Change in Regulating the Chemical Industry,” 46 Law & Contemporary Problems 1 (Summer).Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christopher H. (1986) “Rights against Risks,” 86 Columbia Law Rev. 495.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin (1981) Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shusterman, Dennis (1992) “Critical Review: The Health Significance of Environmental Odor Pollution,” 47 Archives of Environmental Health 76.Google Scholar
Stern, Arthur C. (1957) “Summary of the Conference on Odor Control,” 7 J. of the Air Pollution Control Association 53.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1990) After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Texas Air Control Board (1993) “Survey of State, Regional and Local Nuisance Odor Policies.” Legal Division (25 Feb.). Austin: Texas Air Control Board.Google Scholar
United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice (1987) “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites.” New York: Public Data Access.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980) “Regulatory Options for the Control of Odors.” EPA Report No. 450/5-80-003. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) “Reference Guide to Odor Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants Listed in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Yale Law Journal (1979) Note: “Forcing Technology: The Clean Air Act Experience,” 88 Yale Law J. 1713.Google Scholar
Yngvesson, Barbara (1993) Virtuous Citizens, Disruptive Subjects: Order and Complaint in a New England Court. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yozwiak, Steve (1993) “Nasty Odor Keeps Area Homes Shut; Tempe Residents Blame Foundry,” Arizona Republic, Valley & State sec, 30 March, p. B1.Google Scholar

Cases

Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. v. Pacific Steel Castings Co., Berkeley-Albany Municipal Court, (1991) No. BCV0067442.Google Scholar
Processing & Books, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 28 111. App. 3d 115, 328 N.E. 2d 338 (1976).Google Scholar
Versailles Borough v. McKeesport Coal & Coke Co., 83 Pittsburgh Legal Journal 379 (1935).Google Scholar
Wells Mfg. Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., 48 Ill. App. 3d 337, 6 Ill. Dec. 497, 363 N.E. 2d 26 (1977).Google Scholar
Wells Mfg. Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., 73 Ill. 2d 226, Ill. Dec. 672, 383 N.E. 2d 148 (1978).Google Scholar
Wells Mfg. Co. v. EPA, 195 Ill. App. 3d 593, 142 Ill. Dec. 333, 552 N.E. 2d 1074 (1990).Google Scholar

Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 49-471 (West 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Air Quality Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Health & Safety Code sec. 41700 (West 1990).Google Scholar
Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970).Google Scholar
Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 385 (1977).Google Scholar
Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 549, 104 Stat. 2399, 2531-74 (1990).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Act, 111. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, ¶¶ 1003.02, 1009(a), 1033(b) (Smith-Hurd 1988) (recodified at 415 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ¶¶ 5/9, 5/3, 5/33 (1993 & Supp. 1994).Google Scholar