I. Introduction
Environmental equity represents one of the most confounding developments in all of environmental law. Advocates of environmental equity assert that current law treats low-income and minority communities unfairly and they seek to redress that perceived injustice. Meanwhile, many environmental professionals are struggling to define, quantify, and apply the concept to their daily work.
Environmental equity, sometimes called environmental justice or environmental racism, is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") as:
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.1
While the EPA definition provides a value statement with which few could argue, it fails to provide any substantive guidance on how to apply the concept in environmental decision-making.
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the manner in which environmental equity has been addressed both judicially and administratively. The authors hope to provide a practical assessment of how courts have decided environmental equity claims and to shed some light on current judicial and administrative developments.
II. Judicial Decisions
Congress has not passed any legislation that relates directly to environmental equity.2 In the absence of direction from Congress and prior to the 1994 Executive Order,3 the judiciary handed down several decisions regarding environmental equity claims. These cases fall under three primary legal arguments: (1) those based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) those based on procedural noncompliance with federal or state law, and (3) those based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
A. Equal Protection
Initially, plaintiffs brought claims related to environmental equity under the rubric of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, because of the high burden of proof plaintiffs must meet when employing this claim, courts effectively eliminated equal protection as a tool to successfully claim unequal application of environmental laws.
B. Procedural Noncompliance Cases
Although citizen groups seeking to assert equal protection claims on behalf of environmental equity have failed in every instance, plaintiffs have been more successful in attacking governmental permitting and construction decisions on procedural grounds. Often these cases turn on the permitting entity's failure to adhere to relevant statutory or regulatory requirements.4
C. Title VI CasesC.Title VI Cases
While procedural noncompliance proved a successful avenue for bringing environmental equity concerns to light, the more recent trend in judicial challenges has been under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.5 Title VI states in part: "No person . . . shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."6 Because nearly every federal environmental law provides for the funding of equivalent state programs, Title VI is widely applicable in both state and federal arenas. Furthermore, Title VI actions are more favorable to equal protection claims because Title VI claims require a showing of only unjustified disparate impact, not intentional discrimination. Despite Title VI's wide applicability, few environmental equity cases involve Title VI claims.
III. Executive OrderIII.
In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12,898, entitled, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations ("the Order").7 Given the previous lack of guidance from Congress on environmental equity, the Order represents the first genuine commitment by the federal government regarding the issue. The importance of the Order is twofold: (1) it stresses need for coordination of government agencies to address environmental equity concerns,8 and, (2) in contrast to the preceding court cases, the Order includes low-income populations as well as racial minorities in the group to be protected.
The Order directs "each Federal agency . . . [to] make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations . . . ."9 In developing a strategy to address environmental equity, each agency must commit to the following four minimum requirements: (1) promote enforcement of health and environmental statutes in areas with minority and low-income populations, (2) ensure greater public participation, (3) improve research and data collection relating to the health and environment of minority and low-income areas and populations, and (4) identify different patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority and low-income populations.10
Irrespective of the strong mandates to federal agencies, the Order does not provide additional federal funding to help carry out its directives.11 In addition, the Order does not provide any form of oversight, either judicial or executive. Instead, the Order asserts that "[t]he head of each Federal agency shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this order."12 Furthermore, the Order does not create a public right to judicial review of an agency's compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the Order. It appears, then, that persons wishing to challenge an agency's actions on environmental equity grounds must still travel the old routes of Title VI, procedural noncompliance, or equal protection claims.
In the Memorandum accompanying the Order, the President directed all agencies to implement the Order in all programs or activities receiving federal monies in accordance with Title VI.13 To this end, agencies must incorporate their environmental equity strategies in any environmental analysis that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") requires14 including when they review other agencies' activities under section 309 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA").
IV. Federal Regulatory
Authorities and Decisions
In accordance with Executive Order 12,898, federal agencies have been developing strategies to deal with environmental equity concerns. While the President's Memorandum accompanying the Executive Order addresses agency actions under NEPA and the CAA, additional authorities exist to address environmental equity.15
A. National Environmental Policy
Act
In the latter part of 1997, the EPA published its guidance document for incorporating environmental equity into National Environmental Policy Act analyses.16 As a general rule, the NEPA Guidance requires the EPA to undertake a NEPA analysis for its own research and development activities, for EPA facilities construction, for wastewater treatment construction grants under the CWA, and for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") new source permits.17 The actions subject to NEPA requirements include the preparation of environmental impact statements and environmental assessments and the issuance of records of decision or "findings of no significant impact."18
In addition to the actions required under NEPA, the EPA voluntarily prepares environmental impact statements for regulatory actions relating to the CAA, most CWA programs, and some other programs such as those under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA").19 Although the NEPA Guidance document by its own terms applies only to an EIS or an EA required under NEPA, the EPA will also, presumably, use the NEPA Guidance as a reference tool in preparing a voluntary EIS or EA.20
B. Clean Air Act
The EPA has authority under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review environmental effects of proposed actions of other federal agencies.21 The EPA has instructions to "ensure that the involved agency has fully analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic effects."22 The EPA has a written guidance document like the NEPA Guidance that relates to environmental equity and section 309 reviews.23 However, the Section 309 Guidance is much shorter and less detailed than the NEPA Guidance.
Although the EPA has formally addressed environmental equity concerns relating to section 309 of the CAA, other possible authorities exist within the CAA under which the EPA might incorporate an environmental equity analysis. An example lies in the requirements for obtaining a nonattainment permit. One requirement of obtaining such a permit is that "an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for such proposed source demonstrates that benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification."24 The use of "social costs" and "location" lends to the argument that this provision gives the EPA authority to incorporate environmental equity issues into the nonattainment permitting process.25
C. Clean Water Act
As with the CAA, several authorities allow the EPA to respond to environmental equity concerns within the Clean Water Act. The EPA will perform a NEPA analysis of programs under the CWA in two circumstances. Under CWA section 511(c),26 new sources seeking to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit must undergo a NEPA analysis. Additionally, permits for the construction of municipal wastewater treatment projects are subject to NEPA under the State Revolving Loan Fund, if the project receives federal funds.27 The EPA will use the NEPA Guidance in preparing an EA or EIS for these new source NPDES permits and for wastewater facility construction permits. In addition to the required NEPA analysis, the EPA may also utilize the NEPA Guidance in evaluating CWA proposed actions through its voluntary EIS policy.
Like the CAA, the CWA contains other indirect authorities the EPA may use in evaluating environmental equity concerns. Section 402 of the CWA is one of these alternative avenues.28 Section 402(B) provides that the EPA Administrator may issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant upon "such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter."29 Because a purpose behind environmental equity conditions is to protect public water resources by preventing pollution,30 the Administrator may limit any permit for discharging pollutants into waterways using environmental equity factors. Thus, environmental equity could play a role in permits for new sources under NEPA and for old sources under the broad discretionary power of subsection (B).
D. Other Federal Regulatory
Authorities
Other avenues for the EPA to incorporate environmental equity into its permitting programs may be found in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. RCRA includes authority to incorporate environmental equity in general provisions applicable to generators, transporters, and owners or operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.31 Each provision allows the Administrator to promulgate standards "as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment."32 Permitting authority under RCRA also contains a general provision that would allow the EPA to condition permits on the protection of human health and the environment.33 Accounting for risks to human health in the permitting process would allow the EPA to consider adverse effects on the health or environment of low-income or minority communities.
SDWA and FIFRA contain general provisions that would allow the Administrator to address environmental equity concerns in the hazardous substance permitting context.34 Moreover, these statutes would allow the Administrator to incorporate environmental equity in registering hazardous substances as well as in restricting the use and labeling of such substances.35
Like the previous authorities, TSCA also contains general discretionary provisions allowing the EPA to use environmental equity analyses; the Administrator is directed to carry out the provisions of TSCA with an eye to the economic and social impact of any action the Administrator takes.36 In addition to general discretionary provisions, TSCA contains explicit, albeit narrow, language encompassing environmental equity. Under the radon program, technical and grant assistance is specifically targeted to "homes of low-income persons."37
E. Sampling of Agency Actions
The EPA Environmental Appeals Board (the "Board") and other administrative bodies have reviewed some of the discretionary and permitting provisions of the federal regulatory authorities.
1. Chemical Waste Management
In the case of In re Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, Inc.,38 the Environmental Appeals Board considered an appeal by local citizens opposed to a landfill permit granted under RCRA, section 3005.39 The Board noted that RCRA, section 3005(c)(1) provides that if a permit applicant meets the requirements of RCRA and its implementing regulations, the Agency must issue the permit, regardless of the racial or socio-economic composition of the surrounding community and regardless of the economic effect of the facility on the surrounding community.40
The Board recognized two areas of discretion available to address environmental equity concerns.41 First, the regulations contain several provisions providing for public hearings and public comments.42 The EPA may always do more in this area than the regulations require, and when the EPA has a basis to believe operation of a facility will disproportionately impact a low-income or minority community, the EPA might, as a policy matter, exercise its discretion to "assure early and ongoing opportunities for public involvement in the permitting process."43 Second, Section 3005(c)(3) provides that "[e]ach permit issued under this section shall contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator (or the State) determines necessary to protect human health and the environment."44 If a facility's operation might adversely affect the health or environment of the local community, the EPA could be required to condition the permit to avoid such adverse affects.45 It should be noted, however, the RCRA permit may not be conditioned on concerns over economic or social impacts.46
2. Louisiana Energy Services
Although not a decision before the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, the case of In re Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.47 is relevant because it discussed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's interpretation of the Executive Order and how it should implement the Order with respect to NEPA. The ASLB concluded that the Executive Order established two aspects of environmental equity: (1) the requirement of identifying low-income and minority populations and addressing disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on them, and (2) the requirement of ensuring that agency activities do not have the effect of subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race.48
3. Shintech
Another recent permitting decision dealing with environmental equity concerns was the decision by the EPA to suspend air emissions permits for a proposed plastics plant to be built by Shintech, Inc. The Shintech decision49 followed in response to complaints by local residents that the facility would violate portions of Title V and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The EPA's decision to block the construction of the plant was based on the Title V claims and not the environmental equity concerns of the citizens.50 In a letter to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ"), EPA Administrator Carol Browner addressed the environmental equity concerns of the citizens by applauding LDEQ's decision to reopen the permits in light of the community's complaints.51 The Shintech decision embraced the citizens' arguments that the EPA could object to the permits based on environmental equity concerns and Title VI.52 An investigation is currently pending with the EPA's Office of Civil Rights.53
V. State Guidance on
Environmental equity
A. EPA's Title VI Guidance
In February 1998, the EPA issued an Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits ("Title VI Guidance").54 Although Title VI is not applicable to the EPA, Executive Order 12,898 and its accompanying memorandum direct agencies such as the EPA to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI and to ensure that federal actions substantially affecting human health or the environment do not have discriminatory effects based on race, color, or national origin.55 Thus, as a policy matter, the EPA is committed to nondiscrimination in its own permitting programs. However, the issue differs regarding the states.
If a state accepts EPA funding, the state is obligated to comply with EPA regulations as well as Title VI nondiscrimination obligations.56 Furthermore, according to the Title VI Guidance, "unless expressly exempted from Title VI by Federal statute, all programs and activities of a department or agency that receives EPA funds are subject to Title VI, including those programs and activities that are not EPA-funded."57
B. Environmental Equity in Texas
Environmental equity is more a matter of policy than of statute or case precedent in Texas. The Texas Legislature has not passed or even seriously considered a statute addressing environmental equity directly. From a judicial perspective, two notable cases have included environmental equity issues. Those cases58 pertained to the siting of a landfill in Houston59 and, most recently, the construction of the Kennedy Heights subdivision near historically oil-contaminated areas near Houston.60 The environmental equity issue has arisen in many administrative matters at the EPA and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC").
At this time, the TNRCC's primary response to the issue has been to establish the Environmental Equity Office. This office seeks to implement TNRCC policies by providing a communications link between government, industry, and citizens groups; by assisting citizens groups in participating in the regulatory process; and by insuring all TNRCC programs operate without discrimination.61 Additionally, the TNRCC is looking at ways to formally incorporate environmental equity issues into the permitting process.62
VI. Conclusion
In examining the entire body of authority under which an environmental equity claim may be brought, only one definitive conclusion presents itself: the future is very unclear. Successful claims under the Equal Protection Clause appear unlikely because of the high burden of proof placed upon claimants. Procedural noncompliance claims may be more likely to succeed. However, the future of environmental equity actions appears to be centered around Title VI claims. Given the lower hurdles of discriminatory effect rather than discriminatory intent required to challenge agency regulations, a Title VI suit is much more likely to succeed than one brought under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal authorities giving rise to environmental equity suits provide little concrete guidance either to those seeking to bring claims or to those seeking to perform a sufficient analysis of their proposals before submitting them for review before state and federal agencies. Most major environmental laws contain broad discretionary provisions that may lead to claims of discrimination. However, for the most part, these discretionary powers remain to be tested. Although Executive Order 12,898 directs federal agencies and the recipients of federal funds to be nondiscriminatory in granting permits that affect minority and low-income communities, the Order does not provide grounds for a legal challenge regarding noncompliance. The EPA guidance document for analyses under NEPA provides detailed definitions and factors to be used in connection with environmental equity issues. Nevertheless, the NEPA Guidance contains few tangible thresholds to overcome in order to avoid claims of discrimination. Finally, the EPA's guidance to states regarding Title VI claims is even more flexible, open-ended, and subjective than the NEPA Guidance. The Title VI Guidance will likely see its first testing as the Shintech case makes it way through the administrative process.
The uncertainty of future environmental equity suits is further complicated by the fact that certain states are now introducing environmental equity laws.63 Should more states enact environmental equity initiatives of their own, the requirements for conducting environmental equity analyses prior to permitting would become very site specific. This movement, in combination with the uncertainty present in federal laws and the EPA's commitment to analyze complaints on a case-by-case basis, leads to the conclusion that addressing the problem of environmental equity will likely remain unpredictable at least for the near future.
Mr. Kenneth Ramirez is a partner, and Ms. Shanda Stephenson is a contract attorney, with the law firm of Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P. Both are in the environmental section and residents at the firm's Austin office. The authors would like to thank Ms. Monica Jacobs for her research assistance in the preparation of this article.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Interim Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analysis, 1.1.1 (1997) [hereinafter NEPA Guidance].
2 Several proposals have been introduced at the federal level; however, none of the bills were enacted. See Environmental Justice Act of 1992, S. 2806, 102d Cong. (1992); H.R. 5326, 102d Cong. (1992); Environmental Justice Act of 1993, S. 1161, 103d Cong. (1993); H.R. 2105, 103d Cong. (1993); Department of the Environment Act of 1993, S. Rep. No. 103-38, at 1 (1993) (elevating the EPA Administrator to cabinet level and thereby giving the EPA more authority to deal with environmental equity concerns); Environmental Equal Rights Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-1924 (1993) (offered as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act); Environmental Health Equity Information Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-1925 (1993) (offered as an amendment to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act). For a further discussion of these proposals, see generally Carolyn Graham & Jennifer B. Grills, Environmental Justice: A Survey of Federal and State Responses, 8 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 237 (1997).
3 For further discussion of the Executive Order, see infra Part III.
4 El Pueblo Para el Aire y Agua Limpio v. County of Kings, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20,357, 20,359, (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento County Dec. 30, 1991).
5 42 U.S.C. 2000 (1994).
6 Id. 2000d. It should be noted that under Title VI distinctive areas that are primarily low-income alone do not receive protection; racial or other similar minority status is required. Policy guides, however, do address low-income status as qualifying for environmental equity purposes.
7 Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (1995) [hereinafter Exec. Order No. 12,898].
8 See Anne K. No, Note, Environmental Justice:
Concentration on Education and Public Participation as an Alternative Solution to Legislation, 20 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. Pol'y Rev. 373, 384 (1996).
9 Exec. Order No. 12,898, supra note 67, 1-101.
10 See id. 1-103.
11 See id. 6-607.
12 Id. 6-601.
13 See Memorandum on Environmental Justice (Accompanying the Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), 30 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 279 (Feb. 11, 1994) [hereinafter President's Memorandum].
14 42 U.S.C. 4321Ð4370d (1994).
15 Since most environmental permits are granted by the EPA, the discussion of the permitting authorities and the cases under those authorities will be in reference to the EPA unless stated otherwise.
16 See NEPA Guidance, supra note 1, 1.2.1.
17 See id.
18 See id. 1.2, 1.2.1.
19 Changes to the existing voluntary environmental impact statement policy were proposed recently. See Notice of Proposed Changes to Voluntary Environmental Impact Statement Policy, 62 Fed. Reg. 63,334 (Nov. 28, 1997). The changes would remove the voluntary preparation of an EIS under the CAA, the Atomic Energy Act, and FIFRA. See id. at 63,335. EPA would still prepare voluntary EISs on a case-by-case basis. See id. Most notably, the EPA would prepare an EIS regarding actions involving environmental equity issues. See id.
20 See NEPA Guidance, supra note 1, 1.2.1.
21 See 42 U.S.C. 7609 (1994).
22 Presidential Memorandum, supra note 13, at 280.
23 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Draft Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in Clean Air Act 309 Reviews (July 19, 1995) [hereinafter Section 309 Guidance].
24 Clean Air Act 173(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(5) (1994).
25 See Richard J. Lazarus, Fairness in Environmental Law, 27 Envtl. L. 705, 719 (1997).
26 Clean Water Act 511, 33 U.S.C. 1371© (1994).
27 See 33 U.S.C. 1292.
28 Id. 1342.
29 Id. 1342(a)(1).
30 This represent a goal of the CWA under 101. See id. 1251.
31 See Solid Waste Disposal Act 3002(a), 3003(a), 3004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6922(a), 6923(a), 6924(a) (1994).
32 Id. Factors to consider in promulgating standards include the location of facilities (section 3004(a)(4) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act) and contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage (section 3004(a)(5) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act). These two factors incorporate the issues central to environmental equity, that of siting as it bears on risk aggregation and cumulation and mitigating hazards to affected populations.
33 Id. 6925(c)(3).
34 See FIFRA 3, 7 U.S.C. 136a (1994); Public Health Service Act 1412, 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(7)(C)(I) (1994).
35 See id.
36 See TSCA 2, 15 U.S.C. 2601© (1994).
37 Id. 2665(a)(6); see also id. 2666(I)(2).
38 In re Chemical Waste Management of Ind., Inc., 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 40,392 (EPA Environmental Appeals Board June 29, 1995).
39 RCRA/Solid Waste Disposal Act 3005, 42 U.S.C. 6925 (1994).
40 Id.
41 See In re Chemical Waste Management, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) at 40,392, 40,394.
42 Procedures for Decisionmaking, 40 C.F.R. 124 (1997).
43 In re Chemical Waste Management, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) at 40,394.
44 Id.
45 See id.
46 See id.
47 In re Louisiana Energy Services, L.P., 45 Nuclear Reg. Comm'n Issuances (Nuclear Reg. Comm'n) 367 (Atomic Safety and Licensing Board May 1, 1997) (Louisiana Energy Services withdrew its application from consideration on April 22, 1998).
48 See id at 36B.
49 Order Responding to Petitioner's Requests that the Administrator Object to Issuance of State Operating Permits, In re Shintech Inc. (Polyvinyl Chloride Production Facility), Permit No. 2466-VO, 2467-VO, 2468-VO (Administrator, U.S. EPA Sept. 10, 1997) [hereinafter Shintech].
50 According to the petition, ninety-five percent of persons living near the proposed site are African-American, and fifty percent of the persons live on incomes of $15,000 or less.
51 See Operating Permits: First Citizen Petition Under Title V Granted to Block Construction of Industrial Facility, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 835 (Sept. 12, 1997).
52 See Radioactive Waste: Energy Consortium Withdraws Application for Uranium-Enrichment Plant License, 83 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) A-2, *11 (Apr. 29, 1998).
53 In light of the Seif case, the citizens could also challenge the permits under Title VI without first having to wait for the EPA to bring suit. See Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif, 132 F.3d 925, 936Ð37 (3d Cir. 1997).
54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice, Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Feb. 1998) [hereinafter Title VI Guidance].
55 See Exec. Order 12,898, supra note 67, at 2-2; President's Memorandum, supra note 13, at 280.
56 See 40 C.F.R. 7.25 (1997).
57 Title VI Guidance, supra note 55, at 3.
58 See Texas Partners for Environmental Justice, Natural Outlook (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Comm'n, Austin, TX), Winter 1998, at 4.
59 Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corp., 482 F. Supp. 673 (S.D. Tex. 1979), aff'd without opinion, 782 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1986).
60 See Adams v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. H-96-1462 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (currently in mediation).
61 See Texas Natural Resource Conservation Comm'n, Public Participation in Permitting 19 (1998).
62 See Texas Partners, supra note 59, at 3.
63 For a discussion of recent legislation in New York and Pennsylvania, see generally Graham & Grills, supra note 2, at 205Ð58. California's South Coast Air Quality Management District recently approved a plan that would analyze cumulative impacts of emissions, and the introduction of further environmental equity policies appears imminent. See generally, California: South Coast Air District Adopts Environmental Justice Program, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1,265 (Oct. 24, 1997). At this time, the Texas Legislature has not introduced any legislation directly addressing environmental equity.