Love Canal is an abandoned canal project branching off of the Niagara River about four miles south of Niagara Falls. Beginning the 1940’s to early 1950’s, the Hooker Chemical Company, with government authorization, began using the partially excavated canal as a chemical waste dump. At the end of this phase, the contents of the channel consisted of toxic chemicals, including known poisonous carcinogens. Hooker covered the sixteen-acre hazardous waste landfill in clay; selling the land to the Niagara Falls School Board, attempting to release itself from any future liability by including a noted warning in the property deed.
There are some critical legal aspects of the Love Canal case. Many civil actions or were brought against Hooker/Occidental during and after the Love Canal event. By the year 1980, Occidental faced over two billion dollars in court cases, mainly from Love Canal; including violations in other parts of the country. Properties would be sold off, and all the citizens would only get a small percentage of money, leaving the government to finish the cleanup. (NYDH) This two billion dollar amount included the punitive damage brought about by citizens, along with the lawsuits filed by the city, state, and federal officials.
Considerably, these figures were purposely magnified, thus negotiating down the plaintiff’s damages, including both compensatory and punitive damages. The Court ultimately found that Occidental was liable for compensatory damages. Occidental was not held responsible for punitive damages because a federal court judge found that they had not acted with reckless or willful disregard of the rights or safety. The decision also reduced the amount of the lawsuits considerably; as a result, Occidental could meet the expenses to some of the damage.
Companies are typically held to eticulous liability when it comes to toxic dumping. This means if the chemicals are there illegally than it is the company who is responsible for them. In this case, the company was partly responsible, but the school board and city of Niagara Falls acted negligently. Why then weren’t they sued as well? The answer lies in the deep pockets concept of torts. This theory says sue the biggest businesses with the most money. Since toxic dumping is regarded in strict liability, Hooker admitted putting the chemicals there, and they have plenty of assets, they were the perfect target for all the massive lawsuits that followed.
The Love Canal Homeowners Association developed from another assembly established in June 1978, “The Love Canal Parents Movement. The Parents Movement was created by Lois Gibbs, who lived in the community and children attended the 99th Street School. Gibbs, unacquainted of the dumping, was alerted newspaper articles depicting the landfill, its wastes, and juxtaposition to the 99th Street School. Having an unhealthy and weak child attending the school, Gibbs became troubled about the danger the landfill presented to the school.
Additionally, she realized that the school being constructed so close to the landfill may have something to do with her son’s unfortunate health conditions. Gibbs first approached the School Board supplied with notes from two physicians recommending the transfer of her child to another school. However, the Board refused to move her child maintaining that if it were hazardous for her son, then it would be dangerous for all children. They were not going to shut down the school because of one anxious mother with a sickly child On August 2, 1978, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a health order.
The health order recommended that the 99th Street School be closed, that pregnant women and children under the age of two be evacuated, that residents do not eat out of their home gardens and that they spend minimal time in their basements. Days later, the state agreed to purchase all 239 households in the first two rings of homes closest to the canal. (Boston University) Throughout this case, there was a great deal of legal maneuvering, including political pressure put on the legal system.
It was an emotionally charged court case with multiple parties responsible for the love canal disaster; although at the dangers were not as clear as they are today. Looking back at the situation is easier to criticize than it is to make the respectable decisions as one goes along. Regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FEMA are so important in protecting Americans from companies in violation of environmental laws. Accountability of the “Love Canal” episode, correctly remembers the legacy and represents more than impressive events in the political process; offering a chance to avoid the creation of tragedies like Love Canal.
Burden of Proof To be found civilly accountable for violating environmental laws the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of the evidence; meaning that the evidence presented is conclusive and more likely to be true than not. To all intents and purposes, the standard is reassuring if there is a greater than fifty percent chance that the evidence is accurate. The defendant in a civil suit can either be found legally responsible, following a trial or reach a mutual settlement with the government.
The defendant is then obliged to meet all of the terms of the settlement but does not have to admit violation of the law. Criminal guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt. ” This is a stricter or higher requirement than the civil liability standard. When a criminal offender pleads guilty or is convicted by a jury, there is no question of lawful misconduct and has legally committed to the crime. Monitoring and Enforcement Costs and Benefits Marketoriented instruments are not favorable because they vary in the degree of difficulty required to supervise and enforce them.
For example, deposit-refund systems, subsidies, and information disclosure shift the burden of proof to establish compliance with the government to regulated articles. Because corporations are in a better position than government to monitor and account for their own emissions, they may do so at lower prices. This feature makes this approach appealing when monitoring is problematic or emissions must be estimated. In these cases, attempts to prohibit the activities of polluters are likely to fail as a result of the risk of widespread noncompliance (e. g. illegal dumping to avoid paying the taxes) and expensive enforcement.
General Electric, No Friend to the Environment GE was a big proponent, and prime beneficiary, of the “business-friendly” initiatives undertaken by former New York State Environmental Conservation Commissioner Michael Zagata, who was ousted by Governor Pataki after a controversial tenure. This “business friendly” policy, in 1995, let GE avoid paying a fine and gave the company a tax write-off. The settlement, reached through the program, let General Electric off the hook for permitting an industrial landfill to burn out of control for nearly a year in Waterford, Saratoga County.
The deal allowed the company to avoid paying a fine, gave it a $1. 5 million tax write off, and resulted in a boat launch being built near the Columbia County residences of former Environmental Conservation Commissioner Michael Zagata and his chief deputy. These “business-friendly” initiatives were later rescinded. (TMM) Environmental Justice The right to a healthy environment: everyone should have a suitable quality of life, with a safe and healthy place to live, work and play and have enough resources for everyone, both now and in the future.
No disproportionate negative influence of environmental policies, acts or omissions on minority communities. Equal access to environmental information, participation, policymaking and justice. There should be equal protection and meaningful participation of all members of society with respect to the development, implementation, and of environmental laws, policies and regulations the equitable distribution of environmental advantages. The underprivileged and least powerful members of society encounter environmental injustice, such as health inequalities, exclusion and poverty.
Sufferers have no ower to do anything to change their situation, with the source of the injustice being a deliberate omission by an outside agency. Geographical Environmental Inequality is the condition of inconsistency in the sharing of environmental opportunities between different groups in society. It can also be defined as the unequal social distribution of environmental hazards and access to environmental supplies and services. Measures of environmental inequalities are: industrial pollution, air pollution, transport and public transport access, access to natural green spaces and noise, biodiversity, housing, safety, equality and race issues.
Social Inequality Social inequality is the reality of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions within a society or groups. Environmental Social inequality has several important dimensions. Income is the earnings from employment or investments, while wealth is the total value of capital and other assets minus debts. Other important dimensions include occupational prestige, power, schooling, ancestry, ethnicity and race.
One perfect example of Social Inequality was in the movie about Erin Brockovich, the idea is that people look down on the citizens of Hinkley, California, a lower, impoverished class, were seen as gullible. First there is Erin herself, and the discrimination she faced from seeming to belong to a lower class. More importantly, there was the discrimination by PGE against the poor people whose health they risked. However, PG&E was responsible to pay the residents $333,000. 000. The case is one of the largest class action lawsuits in America’s History. I would have to say that the Social Inequality made no difference concerning this issue!
Environmental Risk Environmental Risk can be defined as the actual or potential threat of adverse effects on living organisms and the environment by emissions, effluents, wastes, resource depletion, etc. , occurring because of an organization’s activities. The politicization of science about environmental risks to human health and risks to the world’s climate risks put into perspective; presenting that some risks are so serious that everyone must agree that they need attention. While others Bureaucrats pretend to be are less certain because the consequences of the risks, if there are any, and cannot be measured.
Additionally, prejudice in federal funding to research programs that reinforced the messages of imminent tragedy; for instance, loss of humanity and the planet earth devastated by global warming, famine, pestilence, and floods. Martino, an engineer and retired U. S. Air Force colonel, discusses some of the most publicized environmental issues of the last decade or so, spotted owls, lynxes, the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park; attempting to resolve conflicting claims on the water in the Klamath Basin.
In all those issues, there is evidence that government officials purposefully selected results, misinterpreted observations, and interfered with experiments in order to advance their goals. Happer and Miller’s chapters to some degree reflect the normal working of politics. New administrations replace the senior officials of federal organizations with appointees who share their political preferences. This is expected and expected, but as Happer and Miller describe, replacements made without concern of maintaining a solid scientific base for formulating technical decisions can lead to mistakes. (Gough)
