We have a possible problem brewing in the San Joaquin valley.
Problem:
We own a site near Kettleman Hills that we have been using for disposal since 1987. We have recently won
permission from all relevant agencies to build a new state-of-the-art incineration facility at that site. This
win took some serious lobbying of those agencies.
Recently, one of our nemeses, People for Clean Air & Water, filed a lawsuit against the state, the county
and us to attempt to prevent the construction of this facility. In the midst of our other problems with the
EPA, the EPA is currently turning its attention to the basis for this lawsuit, namely racism and ethnic
discrimination in physical placement of our undesirable sites.
Issues:
EPA’s increased scrutiny of predominant race near waste sites.
Unfounded lawsuit.
Waste disposal in general.
Incineration as a method of disposal.
Economic Considerations:
We expect this incineration facility to generate at least $25 million annually in revenues. Because of our
lobbying and negotiations with the local government, we have already invested a major amount of time and
resources into building this incinerator. This incinerator will bring economic growth to the community in
the form of jobs and taxes.
Ethical Analysis:
We are in the business of toxic waste disposal, and we are the largest firm of our type in the nation. We do
know the latest and best methods available to store and incinerate waste. The disposal methods of toxic
waste are not desirable for anyone, but a market exists for disposal at the best methods available, and we
profit off of our willingness to dispose of this waste, and our knowledge of the best methods. Therefore
disposal will happen with or without us. Incineration is widely regarded to be the preferred method of
disposal for many wastes. As for the question at hand, the location of the disposal sites and their correlation
with minority communities, we do seek the communities that welcome us. The leaders of those
communities elected by a popular vote of the members of those communities have been given the right to
speak for the entire community in question. We have convinced the leaders of Kettleman Hills through
good-faith negotiation that our new incineration site will create a net gain for their community. For a
depressed community, we feel that the local leadership has the right and responsibility to weigh costs and
benefits of hosting a disposal site. We are happy to provide information and concessions to come to a
productive agreement with local communities to benefit everyone involved.
The facts point to minority communities welcoming our presence more than non-minority communities.
This does not mean that we seek out communities based on their predominant race or ethnic origin. The
issues of economic prosperity and of predominant race in a community need to be separated here. We do
seek out communities that could prosper from the economic injection that our facilities provide to the local
economy. The correlation between race and economic status does exist, but we are profit driven, not driven
by racial bias. This means that if a community offers us a place to work that is less expensive than a second
choice, we will of course strive to acquire the cheaper site, regardless of the predominant race of the
community. We cannot be held responsible for the correlation between economic conditions and race.
To avoid future lawsuits we must invest a little bit more into research today. Undoubtedly, the EPA, an
environmentalist group, or a community with second thoughts will eventually bring a lawsuit against us
after the fact alleging racial discrimination in site selection. We must look at all options prior to making a
decision on a site, and we need to document our decision-making process for future cases. This will not
prevent the future cases, but it will increase our chances of not losing them.
This lawsuit appears to us to be a maneuver by the environmentalist groups to prevent our incinerators
construction anywhere, not in this particular area. From an logical standpoint, the environmentalist group is
trying to block us with a lawsuit based on a misperception, and is speaking out of turn, as the affected
implied victims of our choice of location welcome the facility.
Recommended action:
Continue the construction of our incinerator. Countersue for an unfounded lawsuit and force the
environmentalist groups to bring their arguments out into the open, possibly “beating them back” to prevent
future ineffectual legal jabs at the waste disposal industry which in the long run raise everyone’s costs. As
long as we can prove that the basis for the lawsuit (racism) is unfounded, they will most likely return to
their same old arguments that are irrelevant to this suit. Those arguments have a forum in the legislative
bodies that determine national standards and in the public eye to prevent waste generation. We are not
hiding any aspects of our operation, we are subject to strict regulation by the EPA. We are acting
responsibly. We are doing nothing wrong, we are providing a needed service, working at the state of the
art, disclosing information, and creating economic growth.