The recent hurricanes in the Gulf and Florida have forced cities across the country to reckon with their emergency response preparedness, provisions, and people-evacuation standards in the wake of natural disasters.
However, Houston's Harvey legacy is just beginning to surface, even as the water levels dissipate from the initial storm surges.
According to an article from the New York Times, at least 14 toxic waste sites located near Houston were flooded or damaged, while "nearly 100 spills of hazardous substances have been reported" as of September 8. More spills and potentially toxic residues may be found in the coming weeks of clean-up.
Each of these 14 toxic waste spill-sites are recognized under the federal Superfund program, an Environmental Protection Agency initiative (which may or may not be un-funded this fall) that "is responsible for cleaning up some of the nation’s most contaminated land and responding to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters" according to the EPA's own website.
From the New York Times reporting: "At least 14 of these [Superfund] sites — whose grounds are contaminated with dioxins, lead, arsenic, benzene or other compounds from industrial activities — were flooded or damaged by Hurricane Harvey."
What's important to note about the location of these Superfund sites in the wake of Hurricane Harvey is their location in map-able connection to income status and self-identified race.
However, Houston's Harvey legacy is just beginning to surface, even as the water levels dissipate from the initial storm surges.
According to an article from the New York Times, at least 14 toxic waste sites located near Houston were flooded or damaged, while "nearly 100 spills of hazardous substances have been reported" as of September 8. More spills and potentially toxic residues may be found in the coming weeks of clean-up.
Each of these 14 toxic waste spill-sites are recognized under the federal Superfund program, an Environmental Protection Agency initiative (which may or may not be un-funded this fall) that "is responsible for cleaning up some of the nation’s most contaminated land and responding to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters" according to the EPA's own website.
From the New York Times reporting: "At least 14 of these [Superfund] sites — whose grounds are contaminated with dioxins, lead, arsenic, benzene or other compounds from industrial activities — were flooded or damaged by Hurricane Harvey."
 |
| graphic from the NYT article |
What's important to note about the location of these Superfund sites in the wake of Hurricane Harvey is their location in map-able connection to income status and self-identified race.
All in all, Harris County (home to Houston, TX) houses 50 Superfund sites. According to a report from Mother Jones, "neighborhoods [in Harris County] with Superfund sites are, on average, 79 percent nonwhite."
The Center for Biological Diversity also noted that of the 82 total Superfund sites found in the 13 counties affected by Hurricane Harvey, "73 percent of those sites are located in communities that are predominantly low-income or homes to people of color."
This connection between where people who make a lower income and/or people who identify as nonwhite live and Superfund sites means that they are more at-risk to toxic spillages in the event of a flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster.
Laura Pulido's article is timely in tying together this concept of environmental racism and what the United States is witnessing in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Pulido begins the article by defining environmental racism as "the idea that nonwhites are disproportionately exposed to pollution" (Pulido, 2000, p. 12). I would add that economic income earnings can also be examined in this unjust environmental pollution phenomenon. (Race and economic income earnings are often lumped together in some environmental racism discussions, but I think it's worth mentioning both classifications here in Houston).
Pulido's discussion on the often asked inquiry 'which came first? poorer people of color or environmentally toxic places?' is an important point to highlight in this larger race/racism and space/spatial injustice discussion. Pulido notes that these questions of siting and 'intentionality' as she calls it are "problematic because they prevent us from understanding how racism shapes places and the relationships between places, and thereby limits our ability to detect environmental racism [emphasis added]" (Pulido, 2000, p. 33).
Perhaps asking the question 'which came first?' is thoughtful for the sake of timelines but not really helpful for the people living in, such as in Houston, and among toxic sites.
Importantly, critical discussions of white privilege, 'white flight' and the transition to white sub-urbanization, as noted by Pulido and the case-study of Los Angeles, is also needed to understand resource access and land (dis)placement in modern-day spaces like Houston.
Are there other 'spaces' like Houston and Los Angeles in the United States, predisposed to environmental racism and toxic injustices? Undoubtedly, yes.
Will it take a Hurricane Harvey or another major natural (or man-made) disaster before we start having a national conversation on *where* people live? And why? And how? And if there's anything we can do about it now? I hope not.
Comments
Post a Comment