Summary

Summary

"Poor, rural and overwhelmingly black, Warren County, North Carolina, might seem an unlikely spot for the birth of a political movement. But when the state government decided that the county would make a perfect home for 6,000 truckloads of soil laced with toxic PCBs, the county became the focus of national attention.

The dump trucks first rolled into Warren County in mid-September, 1982, headed for a newly constructed hazardous waste landfill in the small community of Afton. But many frustrated residents and their allies, furious that state officials had dismissed concerns over PCBs leaching into drinking water supplies, met the trucks. And they stopped them, lying down on roads leading into the landfill. Six weeks of marches and nonviolent street protests followed, and more than 500 people were arrested -- the first arrests in U.S. history over the siting of a landfill.

The people of Warren County ultimately lost the battle; the toxic waste was eventually deposited in that landfill. But their story -- one of ordinary people driven to desperate measures to protect their homes from a toxic assault -- drew national media attention and fired the imagination of people across the country who had lived through similar injustice. The street protests and legal challenges mounted by the people of Warren County to fight the landfill are considered by many to be the first major milestone in the national movement for environmental justice." [5]

Renee Skelton  Vernice Miller 

The Environmental Justice Movement | NRDC

Emancipation & Reconstruction (1865–1877)

Mechanisms of oppression

After emancipation, Black Codes, convict leasing, and racial terror replaced slavery, controlling where Black people could live and work. Local officials pushed Black housing into low-lying, undesirable, or industrial-adjacent areas near rail lines, stockyards, and early factories, while white neighborhoods reserved cleaner water resources, and developed infrastructure and basic sanitation first. These land-use choices laid the pattern: Black communities were treated as “dumping grounds” for noxious land uses, without any meaningful say in local decision-making.

Accumulating effects

Because Black families were confined to flood-prone land, unpaved streets, and later, neighborhoods lacking sewers and trash collection, they faced higher disease burdens, more property damage, and lower land values from the very beginning. Early spatial segregation meant that even when Black people acquired land or homes, those assets appreciated less and carried higher health risks than comparable white property, planting an environmental foundation for the racial wealth gap. 

Sources

• Land and the roots of African-American poverty | Aeon Ideas

• Environmental Law as Segregation

Jim Crow Segregation and Early Industrial Zoning (1877–1930s)

Mechanisms of oppression

As Reconstruction ended and the Jim Crow era began, states and cities used segregation statutes, racial zoning ordinances, and racially restrictive covenants to confine Black residents to specific districts. City planners then steered slaughterhouses, warehouses, rail yards, brick kilns, and other heavy industries into or next to those Black districts, while strictly zoning white areas as “residential only.” Public works spending favored white neighborhoods with paved streets, sewers, and parks, while Black neighborhoods endured open sewers, trash burning, and industrial smoke. 

Accumulating effects

Industrial siting and basic-infrastructure neglect produced chronic exposures to smoke, dust, and waterborne disease, higher child and adult mortality, and chronic under-valuation of Black neighborhoods. Once Black communities were labeled as “slums” because of conditions the state itself created, those same labels were later used to justify clearance, urban renewal, and further disruptive infrastructure projects—locking environmental harm into the geography of Jim Crow.

Sources

• Roesler, “Racial Segregation and Environmental Justice” (Environmental Law Reporter, 2021): 

• Apartheid by Another Name: How Zoning Regulations Perpetuate Segregation

• Racial Diversity and Exclusionary Zoning:
  Evidence from the Great Migration

New Deal Redlining and Industrial Mapping (1930s–1945)

Mechanisms of oppression

During the New Deal, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) created color-coded “residential security” maps that graded neighborhoods for mortgage risk. Black and racially mixed areas were marked in red as “hazardous” and denied credit, while white areas received subsidized mortgages. These redlined districts then became prime sites for polluting industry, warehouses, truck depots, and other land uses that required cheap land and limited opposition. Federal housing and lending policy thus directly reinforced racial segregation and channeled environmental hazards into Black neighborhoods.

Accumulating effects

Redlining cut Black families off from the main pathway into middle-class wealth—homeownership in appreciating, well-serviced neighborhoods—while piling environmental burdens onto the only neighborhoods where they could live. Contemporary studies show formerly redlined areas still have higher pollution, more noise, less tree canopy, and worse environmental risk scores, which translates into higher health costs, reduced life expectancy, and weaker property appreciation today.

Sources

• Historical Redlining Is Associated with Disparities in Environmental Quality across California - PMC
• Historical Redlining Impacts Contemporary Environmental and Asthma-related Outcomes in Black Adults - PMC

Postwar Urban Renewal, Highways, and Suburbanization (1945–1968)

Mechanisms of oppression

After World War II, federal and local governments used the Housing Act of 1949, “slum clearance,” and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 to bulldoze Black neighborhoods for freeways, stadiums, and civic centers. Planners routed interstates and major arterials through Black business districts and residential areas, often explicitly to create racial barriers or clear land deemed “blighted.” At the same time, subsidized suburbanization and exclusionary zoning channeled white families into cleaner, greener suburbs while leaving Black residents hemmed in by traffic, truck routes, and industrial corridors. HISTORY+2ITDP+2

Accumulating effects

Highways and urban renewal displaced hundreds of thousands of Black families, destroyed Black-owned homes and businesses, and left behind neighborhoods carved up by concrete, polluted by traffic, and devalued in the real estate market. Property that might have served as intergenerational wealth was taken through eminent domain at depressed prices, while remaining Black neighborhoods suffered from worsened air quality, noise, and social fragmentation that continue to impact health and wealth today.

Sources

• Cookson Lecture Explores How Racist Policies Poison Communities | Virginia Wesleyan University
• Environmental Racism | The Climate Reality Project
• Discrimination Has Trapped People of Color in Unhealthy Urban ‘Heat Islands’

Early Environmental Law and the Birth of the EJ Movement (1968–1987)

Mechanisms of oppression

The late 1960s–1970s brought landmark environmental laws—NEPA (1969), Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, creation of the EPA—but these statutes were implemented in a racially stratified landscape. Permitting, enforcement, and environmental impact assessments often ignored the cumulative burdens already falling on Black communities. Hazardous landfills, incinerators, and industrial facilities continued to concentrate in Black towns and neighborhoods, as seen in Warren County, North Carolina, where the state sited a PCB landfill in a poor, majority-Black community despite intense local opposition.

Accumulating effects

Formal environmental protections improved overall air and water quality, but Black communities saw far fewer benefits and continued to bear outsized risks. The 1982 Warren County PCB protests crystallized the concept of “environmental racism,” and the 1987 report Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States empirically showed that race was the strongest predictor of hazardous waste facility siting. These findings documented that environmental law had not corrected racial inequities; instead, pollution had been redistributed onto communities that already lacked political and economic power.

Sources

• The Environmental Justice Movement

• History » Environmental Justice » Avoice Digital Library » African American Voices in Congress

EJ Executive Orders, Superfund, and Uneven Enforcement (1987–2000s)

Mechanisms of oppression

In response to mounting evidence of environmental racism, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 in 1994, directing federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse environmental and health effects on minority and low-income populations. Agencies added “environmental justice” language to their NEPA and Superfund processes, but the order lacked strong enforcement mechanisms, clear metrics, or private rights of action. Studies of Superfund site selection, cleanup pace, and relocation decisions through the 1990s and early 2000s found that communities of color remained more likely to live near toxic sites and less likely to see timely, comprehensive cleanup.

Superfund Site Cleanups Ignore Communities of Color - Union of Concerned Scientists

Accumulating effects

Even as EJ became a formal policy term, Black communities continued to experience slower remediation, weaker enforcement, and persistent siting of polluting facilities. The gap between law on the books and law in action entrenched sacrifice zones in Black neighborhoods and rural Black communities, reinforcing patterns of illness, stigma, and devalued property. The environmental legacies of past siting decisions were thus carried into the new century, still embedded in land values, mortgage markets, and health statistics.

Sources

• Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898 - PMC

• Trump Rescinded Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice – Environmental and Energy Law Program

Climate Crisis, Disasters, and the Unequal Green Transition (2000s–Present)

Mechanisms of oppression

As the climate crisis accelerates, the same racialized land and housing patterns—especially redlining—place Black communities in hotter neighborhoods, floodplains, and industrial corridors with fewer trees and more pavement. Heat-island research shows that formerly redlined neighborhoods are often several degrees hotter and face higher climate risk today. Disaster policies (FEMA aid, resilience grants, buyout programs) and climate adaptation funds tend to deliver more resources to white, higher-wealth areas, while Black neighborhoods see more denials, slower aid, and underinvestment in resilience infrastructure. Meanwhile, many climate and “green transition” subsidies (solar, EVs, efficiency upgrades) disproportionately benefit whiter, higher-income homeowners rather than the Black neighborhoods that endure the heaviest pollution burdens.

Discrimination Has Trapped People of Color in Unhealthy Urban ‘Heat Islands’

Accumulating effects

Climate change multiplies existing environmental harms: Black communities experience more extreme heat, higher storm and flood damage, and more frequent energy shutoffs and displacement, while receiving less public support to rebuild or adapt. At the same time, they are underrepresented among those gaining new wealth from clean-energy ownership, resilience investments, and green jobs. Climate policy without explicit racial-justice guardrails thus risks deepening the environmental roots of the racial wealth gap rather than repairing them. 

Sources

• Discrimination Has Trapped People of Color in Unhealthy Urban ‘Heat Islands’

• The Link Between Historic Redlining And Current Climate Risks | Enterprise Community Partners

Metrics