By Tonya Poole, April 13, 2006

As Westerners, most of us have a passionate relationship with our natural environment – whether we’re using it for our own subsistence, to earn a living, to find solace or opportunities for recreation, or to appreciate the aesthetic beauty it offers. But in our efforts to appreciate and protect it, we’re often overlooking another victim of environmental changes and dangers: ourselves.

Yesterday Colorado College Professor of Sociology Wade Roberts led an important discussion on the equities of environmental hazards in our region, followed by contributions from student researcher Angela Banfill, EPA specialist Jean Belille, environmental lawyer William Snape III, University of Colorado Professor of Sociology Liam Downey, University of Colorado Research Associate Kathryn Mutz and University of Wyoming Professor of Religious Studies and The Environment Sally Palmer.

Panel Review
The EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The purpose of the panel, in this case, was to determine how we fare as a region in addressing environmental justice and caring for ourselves and our neighbors.

Evaluating the 23 most populous areas in the Rockies, Banfill was able to produce data for approximately 75% of our region’s population, and about 70% of the pollutants within the region. Of those studied, the most egregious areas were Salt Lake City, Phoenix and Pueblo, each showing a marked incidence where low income and minority neighborhoods bore a large and disproportionate percentage of exposure to toxic substances. EPA representative Jean Belille talked about the agency’s role in changing environmental justice in the Rockies, and how the federal government fits into the picture. “Sometimes,” she said, “I don’t think we do.”

Belille offered up a history on environmental justice, and a look at where it’s going from the EPA’s perspective. She advocated community-based participation, research and action as likely the best and most effective way to attack the problem going forward.

A long-time environmental advocate, Snape presented a compelling case study on the debate between the U.S. and Mexico over water rights to a small portion of the Colorado River – a river he says is “very close to full allocation for human uses.” The study, “The Colorado River and Transboundary Disputes in an Age of Terror”, discusses U.S. plans to create a concrete-lined canal to replace the clay-lined All-American Canal, which currently allows seepage to flow into and sustain the metropolitan city of Mexicali across the border. Snape argues that a concrete canal would rob the city and 15,000 acres of wetlands, birds and shared eco-systems of the water it needs to thrive, and that effects would be felt just as strongly in the U.S. border town of Calexico, whose economy depends heavily on Mexican dollars from a healthy, thriving Mexicali.

Downey presented a variety of data models from multiple sources, and demonstrated how results in environmental justice vary greatly depending on where data comes from, how it’s collected, and, most importantly, how the study defines environmental justice. He identifies three possible explanations for the problem: purposeful toxic siting in minority or low-income neighborhoods, the idea that low-income people are more likely to live-in or move to toxic neighborhoods, or residential segregation and discrimination in which low-income and minority residents have little choice but to live in these neighborhoods.

Downey demonstrated that the answers here are complex, and reasons for environmental justice can and do vary greatly from region to region.

Mutz asked an important question of the quest to understand and combat environmental injustice and preservation: in our well-meaning attempts to preserve open space areas and protect them from development, are we also creating an environmental injustice for the populations that are burdened by taking that land off the development market? Mutz stressed the importance of analyzing differential enforcement and reclamation on both sides of the coin.

Pastor and passionate environmentalist Sally Palmer gave an emotional presentation of toxic pollution happening in and near her hometown of Laramie, Wyoming, in a neighborhood she says is occupied by families that either aren’t made aware of the dangers, or aren’t able to afford to leave the area. With income and social status comes the power of knowledge and access to tools and information, and Palmer suggests that this, perhaps more than anything, factors largely into the proportion of environmental burdens bore by minorities and low-income families.

New Approaches to Governing the Rockies
The afternoon continued with a second panel addressing the need for the Rockies region to find a common voice in politics, and to attract more attention to the region from legislators and presidential candidates. Political scientist Tom Cronin moderated the discussion, which included presentations from student researcher Chris Jackson, Center for the Rocky Mountain West Director Daniel Kemmis, Democratic strategist Michael Stratton and Conservation Voters of New Mexico Executive Director Sandy Buffett.

The theme of the afternoon was clear, and echoed through each of the panel’s individual and collective discussions: we as a region need to come together and prioritize, define, solidify and voice our goals and issues, and collectively march them to Washington DC to be heard.

Jackson demonstrated how little attention has been given to the Rockies by presidential campaigns, and suggested that regional partnerships with agencies like the Western Governors Association and the Center for the American West may be our best link to Washington. Jackson says the region has been thought of largely as an inland empire in past years. “The rest of the country saps our resources, but contributes very little to our vitality,” he says. If we’re to change that, however, we need to understand that we too have had a hand in our own neglect, but having largely failed to articulate our own common goals.

Stratton talked more about increasing our ability to give political voice to the region, and panel respondents agreed that holding an early-season caucus or primary gives the region a good shot at attracting the attention it needs, and forcing candidates to come and “talk the issues of the west”. Any solution, however, will require establishing regional unity and recognition of our common issues.

Kemmis agreed, and said that over the last several decades we in the Rockies have been experiencing a maturation in our sense of western regional identity, and that it’s time now to move beyond the great mythology of the west and give voice to its reality. He cited High Country News, Headwaters News and the New West Network as promising and important venues through which to connect with what’s happening on regional levels, and to participate in what he called a “a conversation going on across the west.”

Buffett wrapped up the discussion with an overview of the Conservation Voters of New Mexico, and the organization’s agenda toward a pro-conservation majority in the Rockies – making conservation policies a top priority for elected officials.

Discussion: The following question was posed to panel experts, and represents the first, critical question we need to ask ourselves if we’re to achieve the goals put forth in yesterday’s forum: What are the range of common issues that unite us across party lines?