Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno, head of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, discusses her commitment to environmental justice and how it manifests itself in the cases the division's lawyers handle.
E&E: For a layman coming in, we have EPA and Justice Department. Between the two of them, environmental justice should be something that happens as a matter of course. Why is there a need for this tag "environmental justice"?
Moreno: In this administration and going back to the Clinton administration, making environmental justice a reality is part of the core mission. Something that should be par for the course hasn't be par for the course. But we have come to know that over the years that hasn't been the case and some communities have been left behind and some of these communities are the most vulnerable communities.
E&E: What's the difference between environmental justice and enforcing the laws that are on the books already?
Moreno: That's a good question. It should be tantamount to the same, but it hasn't been in the past.
E&E: Why is that?
Moreno: Here at DOJ ... I can say that we will be working in partnership with EPA to try and achieve two important goals. One is outreach and the other is outcomes. What that means is we want to ensure that affected communities -- these are low income and minority communities -- have an early voice in addressing environmental pollution matters. We want to ensure that when we work on behalf of referrals that are made to us, we take into account the views of the community and that we try to negotiate outcomes that will have a direct benefit back to the community. It sounds simple but it isn't. This is not only seeking to comply with the law for folks who violate the law but also looking to see if there are opportunities to have either enhanced injunctive relief or to have supplemental environmental project. To have some meaningful action that's going to right years of pollution in certain communities.
E&E: What would you give as examples?
Moreno: There are a number of opportunities we have had for companies to voluntarily take on more stringent controls. To address, for example, pollution issues at a company, perhaps the company is in compliance but they are prepared to address some shortcomings and the company will voluntarily on a plantwide approach talk to us about what approaches the plant can take to do more to ensure that the communities have more protection. In the context of a supplemental environmental project, the company may take on an additional monitoring obligation. They may agree, for example, to provide data to the community. In the context of sewer overflows that results in sewage backed up into homes, we had Kansas City agree to phased work so that those communities in the urban core get benefits earlier. We have also had an agreement for a supplemental environmental project so that poor members of the community can hook up to the sewer system.
E&E: Are there examples that are more creative?
Moreno: The supplemental environmental project must have a nexus back to the violation. There are parameters on what you can do. When you ask about creative things that can be done, I'll give you an example. There was a business that had wastewater treatment issues. There were violations we sought to address. One thing was bringing their business in compliance with the Clean Water Act, but some of the additional impacts were felt by a neighboring tribe because the emissions were impacting fish that the tribe was reliant on for subsistence. In addition to addressing the Clean Water Act violation, the company agreed to restock the river with fish. Even though it was not a hugely costly project, it was immensely beneficial to the community because at the end of the day, they went beyond compliance. I look at that case as an example of listening to the needs in this case of a tribe, working with a company that is forward-leaning, and addressing some real impacts on the ground. The stocking of the fish -- you can't put a value on that. It's a win-win for everybody.
E&E: Just to go back to getting community voices heard at an early stage. At the recent White House environmental justice forum, one of the things that came out is that people can get very high expectations as to what might be done. How do you manage that and let people know you are going to listen to genuine grievances but not write a blank check?
Moreno: I think you make a very important point. I think that it is important not to over-promise. On the other hand ... there is a lot this administration can do. We think we can bring a lot to bear. Not only highlighting the importance of this issue so we can have some real action on the ground, but really listening to communities. In the enforcement context, the opportunity for outreach comes in the context of putting out a consent decree out for public comment. But once you have a consent decree, you already have a settlement. What we are hoping to do, and it's going to require more work and it's going to require some training, what we are hoping to make it the natural course of events that in the context of litigation, we have an opportunity to hear some affected communities, not only about what's going on in the communities, but what would be meaningful. That's going to help everyone, including the companies who live in these communities and inform the way they do business.
E&E: When listening to people -- it's one thing to listen to them; it's another to do what they want to do. Have there been examples of suggestions that have come out of a community that have become part of the settlement?
Moreno: The Kansas City case is a good example. Stocking fish is another example. We can take some steps that are, frankly, well-received not only by communities but by forward-leaning companies.
E&E: One of the things I've heard is that companies are freaked out when they hear the phrase "environmental justice." They don't know what it means. In this political environment it may just seem like another bureaucratic, red-tape thing they have to deal with. What are you saying to them?
Moreno: We say that this is a good time to have further discussion with business leaders ... who really are in the best position to address some concerns that have been raised by environmental justice communities. I was invited to talk to the Corporate Environmental Corporate Council. There was a lot of interest in talking about environmental justice. We had a very good and productive conversation. I've since been approached to continue the discussion. We are going to take the opportunity to do that with our counterparts at EPA. That is not to say we are going to speak to business leaders to the exclusion of environmental justice communities. Not at all. Rather, we are going to bring business leaders into the conversation. My hope is that there is going to be opportunities for the business community, business leaders to engage with environmental justice communities in a way that's going to be meaningful.
E&E: What about the switch in the administration's approach to business in the last few months since the 2010 midterm elections? There have been efforts to reach out to the business community. Presumably, environmental justice is one of those things that can fall by the wayside.
Moreno: I'm personally engaged as are other members of my team. I have a 100 percent commitment. I really do believe this type of engagement is going to be good for environmental enforcement and compliance. It's going to be good for communities and show companies how they can be good neighbors. How they can have productive relationships with the communities in which they live, and they can take steps that are in fact going to be good for business and they are going to result in important public health and natural resource protection. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.
E&E: When you go to see them what do you say to them? If I was a CEO of a small business in Ohio and I say, "What the hell is environmental justice? It sounds like another pain in the backside," what would you say?
Moreno: Well, I think in that context, it's important to let business owners know that he or she is expected to comply with the nation's environmental laws, that to the extent that that business is not in compliance, we will ensure in working closely with EPA that that company comes into compliance and that it's always a good idea to be proactive, to raise your hand. This is not anything that will provide any additional burden on the company. Rather it's really an opportunity.
E&E: How would it not impose additional burdens?
Moreno: What we do here is to make sure those companies and individuals that violate the law to reap an improper economic benefit in noncompliance are held to task. There are no cost savings in not complying.
E&E: How do you sell that to them? Do you sell it to them as "This is the right thing to do," or "You have been in trouble, everyone hates you here, you can do something that can improve your reputation that you can send a press release out about"?
Moreno: There's no premium on leadership. There are a number of major corporations that are forward leaning, that are interested in having a discussion. We have evidence of that. The place to start is by listening to what the community is experiencing, what the community needs, making sure you are in compliance with the law, and looking for opportunities to really turn the corner on this issue, have a productive conversation. We will look for opportunities to do that with specific cases and in appropriate cases we will seek relief from the court. But the time has come, now, to address the inequities of the past and to make sure that we work toward making environmental justice a reality for all Americans, not just Americans who have a voice.
Click here to return to the story.
