"Solid Waste in the South and Appalachia: A Sociological Examinationtt

April 1992

Lachelle Norris Highlander Research and Education Center

2046 Terrace Ave Knoxville, TN 37996

(615) 974-4109

8tYou take a poor rural county, add a high minority population, and you have the most vulnerable community for the siting of massive waste treatment and disposal facilities. It is the same waste management equation that is being used all over the country. . . I1

Mac Legerton Activist and director of the Center for Community Action, Robeson County, North Carolina

"It was a development plan, very professionally done. . .showed coal out on trains, garbage in.

resident, Clay County, West Virginia

During the eighties, citizens from around the country became more educated and active regarding hazardous and solid waste issues. While the more prominent trouble spots such as Times Beach made the evening news, residents began looking into environmental problems closer to home. With alarming regularity, citizens in the South and Appalachia found themselves having to deal with waste- related issues, either as the current recipients of more waste, or as the targets for proposed landfills.

Today, local residents speak of trends they believe surfacing in the siting process of landfills. As landfill space becomes scarce in urban areas, the rural regions are looked to as the answer to the waste disposal woes. At first glance, there is a .certain logic to this plan. A closer inspection reveals that the residents are typically kept unaware and/or uninvolved in the decision-making process, and the population of the community .I

selected is typically poor and non-white. Residents from these communities feel they are having to receive more than their fair share of the nation's landfills, in addition to dealing with their own disposal problems. The rural South and Appalachia, it is

2

feared, is destined to become the hazardous and solid waste dumping ground for the nation.

WHAT OTHERS HAVE FOUND

How did this dumping ground phenomenon originate? Why is the South and Appalachia growing increasingly more toxic?

Tracina economic trends in the South. In a recent essay by Bullard (1990), economic trends through recent years are designated as playing a key role in the growing toxicity of the South via pollution industries. Beginning in the 1970s, the Southern United States was subjected to drastic economic and demographic change as manufacturing industries migrated from Northern areas to the "sun belt" region. This shift was understood to be a result of many factors, most notably the region's temperate climate, lower wages, lack of employee unionization, inexpensive land, lower taxation, and weak environmental regulations. Unemployed workers from other regions followed these industries and combined with the gqunderemployedgl work force residing in the South to compile a large pool of available and willing labor.

The wave of industrialization that occurred in the mid- seventies drew many polluting industries into the region. Many economic developers were non-discriminating in what types of industries they solicited. As Bullard notes:

Some Southern leaders displayed a Third world approach to development: any industry is better than no industry at all.

(1990, p. 191)

As a consequence, out of five states nationwide that had the highest number of incoming pollution industries, four were in the South (Bullard, 1990). Though the number of jobs increased, so too did environmental problems, as enforcement of pollution and environmental laws, restrictions and regulations were loosened to attract still more industrial development. Residents were urged not to "bite the hand that feeds youvv (p. 191) and as a result, industry and large numbers of waste management companies saw the South Itas a pushover, lacking community organization, environmental consciousness, and with strong and blind pro-business politics'l (p. 191).

u. There does exist prior research around the issue of hazardous waste and its presence in poor and non-white communities. The studies have focused on both , industries producing hazardous waste and their various means of disposing of that waste and those industries who profit by disposing of the hazardous waste for the company. Termed Itpollution industries, the by-products of production find their

3

way into low-income, typically non-white areas.

A report by the National Council of Churches (1986) reported that ##racial minorities and the poor are disproportionately affected by toxic pollutiontt (p. 2). Both the workplace and the home are threatening places for low-income minority peoples. Anecdotal cases are discussed such as the Warren County, North Carolina PCB roadside dumping and the Emelle, Alabama Chemwaste landfill, the largest in the country. Both are located in rural, predominately poor, African-American communities. As a result the National Council of Churches maintains that

. . .when concrete suggestions are made, (for instance, where to place nuclear and other toxic wastes, or which method will best help to solve a particular pollution problem) however, the politically acceptable solution too often ignores the well-being of marginalized and poor communities and fails to be 'concerned with resulting social and economic impacts. . .

(1986, p. 4)

Closely following this report, the Commission for Racial Justice released Toxic Waste an d Race in the United States (1987). Focusing on residential areas across the country, the findings were drawn from two cross-section studies analyzing the demographic characteristics of communities with (1) commercial hazardous waste facilities and (2) uncontrolled toxic waste sites. Consistently, nation-wide, and with statistical significance, race was the most significant variable, "stronger than any other association tested" (Pa 15). Socio-economic factors also appeared to IIplay an important role" in the location of these commercial facilitiesu1 (p. xiii).

The findings of the analytical study on the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities suggest the existence of clear patterns which show that communities with greater minority percentages of the population are more likely to be the sites of such facilities. . .the Commission for Racial Justice concludes that, indeed, race has been a factor in the location of hazardous waste facilities in the United States.

(1987, p. x v )

In March 1990 a national organization, ##Clean Sites, It released a similar study. The focus of this report centered on the quality of drinking water in low-income rural communities where hazardous waste sites were present. Although this was the primary focus of the study, other issues were addressed. In the course of the study

4

it is noted that Ira relatively small number of hazardous waste sites are located in rural, poor countiestt (p. vi). Remarking that most of the poor counties in the United States are found in the South/Southeast regions and that most of the people in these counties are white, it was noted that the percentage of non-white peoples is greater in these rural counties compared to the United States overall.

Bullard (1990) also notes that Itthe correlation between factors associated with disadvantage (poverty, occupations below management and professional level, low rent, and high concentration of black residents) and poor environmental quality has been clearly documented*' (p. 193). This he draws from other research findings as well as his own (see US GAO, 1983; Bullard & Wright 1985, 1987). In addition to work focused on hazardous waste sites, Bullard researched a Houston municipal solid waste landfill, examining the political dimension of the decision-making in regard to the siting of this landfill in a predominately black and low-income neighborhood.

W?I.AT WE KNOW FROM WEAT WE'VE DONE

We have already conducted examinations of the toxic and solid waste crisis in the South and Appalachia and have found startling patterns throughout the region. We began by talking to residents who told of the empty promises of jobs and tax revenue for those southern and Appalachian communities accepting hazardous and solid waste landfills, communities with high unemployment rates and low per capita income. We have documented community residents' testimonials regarding failed economic development plans, declining property values, continued high unemployment and poverty in increasingly toxic communities, due to the presence of a waste landfill.

We decided to quantitatively determine if the more toxic counties in the South and Appalachia differed from the less toxic counties in percentage of non-white residents, in average per capita income, in percentage of persons completing 12 years or more of school, and in unemployment rates. In t*Pollution Industries in the South and Appalachia*@ (1990) , we developed hypotheses that there would be differences in these variables between the more toxic and the less toxic counties.

In order to test these hypotheses, several sources were used to obtain data. The more toxic counties were drawn from prior analysis conducted by the staff of USA Today (August 1, 1989). I

This analysis was based on an EPA report, ttToxic Release Inventory (TRI)It (1987). From our designated eight state region, we included all counties that were listed. as the more toxic according to USA Today. According to the EPA, %early** every factory in the United States employing more than ten persons is required to report use or

5

discharge information to the EPA if more than 75,000 pounds of any one of 328 chemical classified as toxic by the EPA are used or discharged. At the time, the EPA estimated that approximately 75% of all manufacturing facilities were in compliance with these regulations. Military and defense facilities were not required to report to the EPA and were therefore not included in the data set.

The less toxic counties were randomly drawn (with a random numbers table) from the eight designated southern states. For convenience, the sample of the less toxic counties equaled the number of more toxic counties for that particular state. It was assumed that a county not placed on the top 500 most toxic list would not be as toxic as those ranked on the list. Data for the socio-economic variables were taken from the US Countv and City Data Book (1988).

It was found that in fact there were significant differences i9 the two samples regarding average percentage of non-white population, yearly per capita income, percentage of residents completing 12 or more years of education, and average unemployment rates (p=.lO). While this level of significance is not extremely strict, these findings were important. This preliminary report pointed out many short-comings in doing analysis at the county- level, short-comings in working with this type of waste data, and yet stimulated the desire for more in-depth research.

POLLUTION INDUSTRIES: WHAT DO WE KNOW?

TvPes of Dollution industries. From this quantitative research, we began looking at these pollution industries and found them to take many forms. It is helpful to classify these industries into three categories.

First, industries may produce large amounts of toxic and hazardous wastes in the course of their manufacturing process. Examples of these industries include paper mills, chemical plants, defense-oriented manufacturers, petroleum refineries, steel mills, metal companies, textile mills, mineral processing, fertilizer manufactures, automotive plants, and so on. These pollution industries may release toxics near the factory itself: into the air, into the water, into or onto the land, into publicly owned treatment works, or into the earth via deep well injection.

However, during 1987, industries shipped 2.4 billion pounds of hazardous waste off the original site of its creation. This distinguishes the second form of pollution industry, those that produce vast amounts of toxic waste, but ship it off-site to be treated, stored or disposed of elsewhere. The EPA reports 50% of all facilities transferring waste to some degree in this fashion.

The third type of pollution industries include commercial waste management industries that handle other industries, wastes.

I

6

These may include waste treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities. Incinerator companies, landfill companies (hazardous and solid waste) or industries that dispose of waste by deep well injection may be included in this category. It is this category that we are most concerned with here today.

Three Levels of Blackmail. We have also isolated three levels of economic/environmental blackmail encountered by residents from pollution industries:

Level 1:

Level 2:

Level 3:

As Bullard (1990) notes, many pollution industries were drawn to the South years ago (in some instances, they have been in the area since the mid-seventies; other industries located there early in the present century). They are in place, have enjoyed weak regulation and currently have residents in a blackmail situation, threatening plant shutdown if existent freedoms are encroached upon. . -

Pollution industries have located in an area, contaminated the community and have since left the area, leaving residents with an environmental threat. Residents may or may not be aware of the toxic threat left by the departed industry nor know the extent of the threat. Faced with high levels of toxicity, further economic development may in fact be retarded.

Pollution industries, attempting to locate in an area, rely heavily on social inequalities and the area's economic disparity, promising jobs and prosperity in exchange for a hazardous industry.

Many communities in the South and Appalachia have experienced contamination by local industries, having long polluting histories in the area. The people living along Yellow Creek, in Bell County Kentucky, have endured pollution from a Middlesboro tannery for over 80 years. Their collective struggle has lasted a decade, and today they still fight for enforcement of environmental regulations and laws. Many times throughout its history, the plant has threatened to close its doors if pressured into compliance.

Another instance of the first level of economic/environmental blackmail involves a pulp and paper mill located in Canton, North L

Carolina. Effluent from Champion International's production process has polluted the Pigeon River since the day the mill began operating--over 80 years ago. Residents downstream have been fighting for stricter waste water permits for many years,

7

collectively since December 31, 1987. Many fear for the health of residents living along the banks of the river, having discovered a high cancer-related death rate in the small Hartford community. Dioxin is believed to be the cause. Residents also realize that economic development in Cocke County, Tennessee has been retarded due to the highly polluted river. When pushed for stricter regulations the paper mill threatens mass layoffs or complete shutdown, blackmailing the one-company town of Canton, North Carolina. Local, state and federal officials, fearing collapse of the western North Carolina economy, have been influenced and are reluctant to push the paper mill too hard.

The second level of economic/environmental blackmail can also be found in many communities. After discovering a toxic threat that an industry has left behind, a community may face years of struggle in attempting to have the site cleaned up. There may be many abandoned toxic waste dumps, unknown to residents living in the area. Information may be difficult to obtain if a threat is suspected, and attempts to get hazardous sites Superfund status may

, also require lbng durations of constant pressure by residents in the community.

There are more than 18,000 abandoned hazardous waste sites in the United States, one quarter of which are located in the South (Kunerth, 1989). University of Kentucky researchers believe there to be 350 hazardous waste dumps at the present time in the state of Kentucky, only eight of which are on the EPA's Superfund list (KFTC newsletter). Yet another example can be found in Nitro, West Virginia, where cleanup of a dangerous deserted chemical product plant, Fike Chemical, Inc., has proceeded for 12 years. First ordered in 1976 to eliminate surface and groundwater pollution, the plant was not forced into compliance by EPA, for fear of shutting the plant down. The plant was sold in 1986, renamed Artel Chemical Corporation and was shortly thereafter abandoned--leaving 8,000 people in the Kanawha River Valley fearful of the highly unstable and potentially lethal chemicals left behind (New York Times, 1988).

Still another terrifying example of this level of economic/environmental blackmail can be found in Minden, West Virginia, a small, former coal camp in Fayette county. An "imminent danger" of PCB contamination was discovered by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, the source of the pollution being the Shaffer Equipment Company. For years the company rebuilt electrical equipment, dumping the PCB-laden oil in pits, onto the ground, and elsewhere throughout the Minden community. Concerned Citizens to Save Fayette County mobilized shortly after learning of the contamination and the group served to press for and monitor the cleanup. After four years, the group remains unsatisfied, feeling the costly cleanup taineptll and the remaining llallowable limits" of PCB contamination too high. The company was located on a flood plain, and residents believe the

8

flooding of the low lying community has completely saturated the entire area with PCBs. Relocation is the only solution if the lives of Minden's residents are to be protected.

Many communities in the South and Appalachia have experienced an influx of waste management companies in their area. This third level of blackmail, and the level we want to focus on today, can be seen as companies stress the economic benefits a new landfill will bring tothe depressed area. Lee county, Virginia: Greenup county, Kentucky; Dixon, Tennessee; Crestview, Florida; Cumberland county, Virginia; Buchanon county, Virginia; Wise county, Virginia; and Clay county, West Virginia have all been targets of waste management companies' proposed lleconomic development.I1

Another example of this third level of blackmail can be seen in North Carolina. Two community activists from Robeson County, North Carolina (Regan and Legerton 1990) describe the relationships between race, income, and pollution industries as they understood and experienced it in their own community. The county is chhracterized by'a population that is 63% black and Lumbee Indian. Unemployment is high while wages remain low. The authors report that, typically, three out of four workers who are persons of color are employed in lower wage positions. The region as a whole has lost its traditional manufacturing industries (textile, fiber, lumber) to replacement industries whose employment openings are low paying and more hazardous. As lower wage positions have replaced manufacturing jobs, and as an increasing number of people have fallen below the poverty line, the county has become desperate for economic opportunities. The area's depressed economic circumstances proved attractive to hazardous waste companies; proposals for major toxic waste industries have followed. As in similar cases, the promise of jobs and economic development was employed to dissuade opposition to the siting of waste disposal industries in their community (p. 150).

Citizens of the area, through the Center for Community Action, mobilized to fight the siting of a proposed $20 million G S X hazardous waste treatment facility, a struggle that lasted five years. At the present time it is still feared that G S X will resurface to again press for a permit allowing them to locate in the area.

In addition to the hazardous waste issue, people across the region were talking about problems with the solid waste industry so we began looking at the refuse industry regarding the number of landfills in the South and Appalachia, the average annual employment, annual wages per employee, and approximate hourly wages for those working at landfill sites. While we could only obtain data at the state level, we compared these figures to production/manufacturing industries and found that,

... the average hourly wages for those

I

9

individuals employed by the refuse industry are higher than the hourly wages for production/manufacturing jobs (except in West Virginia). Yet, the average number of employees per landfill is small, ranging from an average of 7 persons per facility in West Virginia, to 39 individuals at Tennessee facilities. . . jobs are not widespread nor numerous in conjunction with the locating of a waste industry ... 1

If the waste being dumped is from out-of-state, the situation is further exacerbated. Why has the South and Appalachia become the dumping ground of the nation? Sociologically, we can analyze why this rural southern and Appalachian region of the country has been targeted to receive this imported solid waste.

DOMINATION AND POWERLESSNESS: SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS OF THE WASTE DISPOSAL INDUSTRY

The domination of Appalachia. The rendering powerless of the . people of Appalachia is at once both economic and political. A most complete analysis of the historical process that led to hegemony can be found in Gaventa's Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (1980), but will be briefly summarized here.

The Appalachians were colonized by outside interest for the purpose of extracting resources, namely timber, coal and other minerals. These resources were in great demand in the late 1800's, early 1900's as America experienced unprecedented industrial and economic growth particularly in the South. Companies moved into the region, proceeded to acquire land (by either legal or illegal means) and then shipped the vast wealth out of the region.

This completely reorganized the basically agriculturally- oriented economy, characterized by little formal governmental or politically organization. With the takeover of the land, Appalachians in areas of forced development were left to depend on the companies' wealth and power as a means of survival. The resulting unequal distribution of this wealth and power from outside ownership of land and resources, established during boom times, was defined as *tnormalll by the companies, thus furthering their control over the people of the region, permanently hiding inequality and assuring nonchallenge. This process, according to Gaventa, firmly established control over the people, perpetuated consensus, and resulted in the dominance of values and procedures

Taken from "Dumping Ground for a Nation? The Import of the Eighties: Out-of-state Garbage in Appalachia," presented at the 1989 Conference on Appalachia, University of Kentucky.

10

espoused by the dominant companies.

This powerlessness was believed to still be felt today in this region, explaining why waste management companies would target an area of least resistance. In fact, studies done by waste management associations (Johnson 1985) to discover the best ways possible to site a landfill with the least amount of resistance concluded that Itit seems to be advantageous to site a new landfill at a location where there has already been some invasion of the environment. . where there has been mining activities, quarrying. . . I t (p. 220). Some residents experiencing the threat of this siting process are aware of this rationale. When asked why the rural, southern regions of the country were being targeted, they agreed that strip mined areas were chosen because the operators figured the residents would be *!more acceptingv1 and would react with Itless opposition,11 already having suffered exploitation prior. Other reasons given were political in nature: few or no zoning laws prohibited such landfill activity, rural areas were seen as having less political power, and people in the region were not use to protesting and organizing on the level of people in other areas of the country. All these explanations from the inhabitants of the southern mountainous region can be linked back to the history of traditional powerlessness forced onto the people of the region.

Reaction From the People. The residents of the communities faced with the prospects of out-of-state garbage landfills have been active in organizing against this environmental and health threat. They are aware of the problem, have educated themselves and have gained power in the process. Interesting to note, however, are the obstacles still facing these groups, as waste management officials, and local politicians attempt to create a different picture of the situation. The strategies used by land entrepreneurs to seize power in Appalachia at the turn of the century appear to be the same strategies used by those seeking to profit from the waste industry.

As Gaventa (1980) notes, those attempting to gain control first strive to defeat opposition by use of superior bargaining and political resources/techniques. The people to be affected are kept out of decision-making arenas where deals are made, and plans discussed. If this is consistently accomplished, "barriers against participationt1 or a llmobilization of bias" develops, as Walues, beliefs, rituals, and institutional procedures ('rules of the game'). . . operate systematically and consistently to the benefit of certain persons and groups" (p. 14). This serves to stifle the desire to participate in decision-making arenas. Tactics may involve force, threats of sanctions, biases of the political L

system, or other methods used to set up barriers to action and protest. A third-dimension to this domination process involves the influencing of psychological states to the point where one will accept powerlessness with no challenge. This may be accomplished

11

by controlling information, socialization or the mass media (pp. 14-16).

Many tactics of those desiring to site a landfill in an area form a pattern similar to those used to traditionally render Appalachian people powerless. In the first instance, residents are typically prevented from meetings or hearings where decisions to site a landfill take place. Permit proposals are often kept secret. One resident urges immediate involvement in a fight once the situation is learned of, for "If you wait, you're already behind. In fact, you were already behind when you heard about it." This implies that decisions are most often made away from the public eye--behind closed doors. In one case, however, this strategy backfired. Upon learning of the local government's action, "the secrecy made people angry, the county commission tried to pull something over on them." This anger served to quickly nobilize the people of Clay County, Kentucky.

Concerning the second dimension of power, 'residents who become involved in struggles of this nature are often labeled l%roublemakersll or "wild-eyed environmentalists. (I This is a tactic also employed to prevent action. Mobilization of bias may also occur with the local administrators' #@playing politics,Il getting the issue lost in the bureaucratic shuffle of the political system. In Lee County, Virginia, residents were told by the county administrator that they held no power to stop the siting process to place a 300 acre private landfill operation in the area. According to this politician, the issue rested "in the state's hands." In this case, citizens refused to stifle participation, serving

Other instead to mobilize over 4,000 people in five days. political stumbling blocks include legislation such as interstate commerce laws, this often preventing any action on the local level.

Finally, waste managers attempt to control the actual values, beliefs, and attitudes of the people. In Kentucky, comic books are being distributed to all public school children in the state. These books proceed to glorify landfills, stressing the benefits believed to be associated with them for society as a whole. In another case, information that is biased may be released through the media as propaganda, meant to sway people's attitudes. Waste management companies trying to locate in an area often run full page advertisements in the local paper in order to promote their company and its operation. These ads often distort facts, placing the industry in a more favorable light. Another tactic can be found in the naming of these waste management companies. Names -such as "Green Valley Environmental Company," IIMountain Laurel Resource C~mpany,~' "Resource Reclamation Corporation,l# and "Environmental Disposal Systems1@ all imply environmentally oriented companies, leaving one with a positive impression. Distorted impressions and false information may also be provided by state experts and technicians. One resident explains how the West

12

Virginia Research and Development/Science and Technology agency was called in by the county economic developer in order to "give legitimacy" to the actions of the local landfilling operators. All these tactics can serve to influence I1choicest1 made by residents, while simultaneously, the resident feels that the choice to accept or reject a landfill has been his own choice. However, as residents have become active, and networked with others, the patterns of such tactics are being discovered, allowing for successful counter attacks against those desiring to exploit the region. This desire for networking nationally and internationally is growing.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Defined as an environmental Droblem. Above all others involved, those residents most directly affected by encroaching landfills have been most instrumental in defining the problem as a problem. The general practices of locating and establishing landfills in rural, southern Appalachian areas have been secretive- -out of reach-of the mass media and even escaping the attention of national environmental organizations such as Greenpeace. Area residents, upon stumbling onto out-of-state garbage plans, have begun organizing into community groups. GROWL (Greenup Residents Opposing Waste Landfill), Kentucky; SOCCO (Save Our Cumberland County), Virginia; Citizens for a Clean Environment, Florida; and Dixon County Preservation Society, Tennessee are all examples of increasing numbers of Southern residents mobilizing to either protest a proposed landfill, or to fight for cleanup of an already operating and hazardous one.

Once organized, these citizens are responsible for alerting and educating their neighbors, allowing others to define the situation as an environmental and health problem. They also play substantial roles in blocking local political action bent on granting permits to private companies, supplying data on the hazards involved, networking with existing national level organizations (e.g. Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste), and neighboring counties, counties who are themselves targets for landfills once one is driven from another area.

Citizen groups also play key roles in raising consciousness surrounding the national garbage crisis issue. In rural areas, where many residents have never had cause to be concerned about their household garbage, citizen groups are alerting others to the advantages of recycling, composting and source reduction. The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) label is met with hostility as residents are becoming more and more aware of the national and global garbage crisis. With this knowledge, they seek to network with people from neighboring regions, eventhose from Northeastern areas responsible for producing the garbage glut, in order to work toward alternative solutions and ecologically sound living habits.

13

Appalachian organizations typically liken themselves and the region to Third World countries, for they are aware of the shipping of this nation's garbage and waste to other countries and feel that they are a microcosm of the total world picture. It is not unusual for residents of a small, mining community to empathize with African or Mexican communities facing the same problems. These residents are very much aware of the politics and economics involved in this environmental issue and the increasing knowledge serves to further define the problem. As one resident sums up the situation, IIThere's only two kinds of power in this country--people and money." Not only have citizens most directly affected isolated and defined the problem, but their political awareness has deepened, they have reasoned as to the key causes of the problem and have educated themselves as to the solutions, for their own situation and the nation's predicament in general.

Conclusions. During the course of our investigation of this iksue, we have begun to understand the different types of pollution industries, and the three levels of environmental blackmail. In regard to solid waste specifically, the-industry falls under the third level of environmental blackmail. Research is being done on the direction of the waste flow: the shortage of solid waste landfills in the North and Northeast forces the search for new landfills, and the extremely low southern and Appalachian dumping fees are attractive when compared to the much higher fees in the North.

A cycle is being completed. Appalachian regions became the target for those seeking to withdraw the resources needed for economic industrial growth in this country around the turn of the century. In order to dispose of the access of waste, cumulating from the overabundance experienced by a postindustrial nation, and in particular the urban centers, the site to choose would be a region already rendered powerless from the first onslaught. This reasoning is poignantly made clear by the phrase, "Coal out, garbage in--" a plan devised by those who stand to benefit from the profits of such an operation. In seeking relief from the environmental problem of over-production of solid waste, the Appalachian region has been targeted to receive imported garbage, believing the inhabitants of the region to be powerless to prevent such action.

As examined earlier, the residents of the communities faced with the prospects of out-of-state garbage landfills have been active in organizing against this environmental and health threat. They are aware of the problem, have educated themselves and have gained power in the process. Interesting to note, however, are the obstacles still facing these groups, as waste management officials, and local politicians attempt to create a different picture of the situation. The strategies used by land entrepreneurs to seize power in Appalachia at the turn of the century appear to be the same strategies used by those seeking to profit from the waste

14

industry.

The solutions to this problem are already surfacing out of the movement instigated by the Appalachian people facing the crisis. Much can be learned from their actions. Residents are very aware of the problem, realizing that they are being exploited. They are educating themselves, formulating solutions, and gaining power in the process. Many instances of resistance support these suppositions.

Solutions being suggested by residents include 1) local, in- state handling, disposing, managing of solid waste from within state boundaries, 2) limiting technology responsible for the over production of waste products (e.g. over packaging), and 3) forcing massive pollution problems back to the source, through source reduction. All solutions contain a theme of sound ecologically minded practices and policies, for producers as well as consumers.

Policies that will make any impact must come from the grassroots. Evidence from the past shows that regulatory power in the hands of state and federal officials rarely affects the Appalachian region. Perhaps the most important point to make clear is to stress the need for increased participation, meaninaful and real participation by local residents on such issues. Communities should be allowed access to key decision making positions, for increasingly, state and federal policies are taking power from local citizens. This power, if returned to the people, will assure that the choices and decisions to be made will reflect the wishes, needs and desires of those people most affected by such environmental problems such as the out-of-state garbage crisis.

15

REFERENCES

Bullard, Robert D. 1990. nEnvironmentalism, Economic Blackmail, and Civil Rights: Competing Agendas Within the Black Community. I t Pp. 190-199 in Communities in Economic Crisis: Appalachia and the South. Edited by John Gaventa, Barbara Smith, Alex Willingham. Temple University Press.

Bullard, Robert D. and Beverly Hendrix Wright. 1985. #@The Politics of Pollution: Implications for the Black Community.ft Phvlon XLVII, No 1:71-78.

-------------- 1987. IIBlack and the Environment. *I Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 14 Pp. 165-184.

Clean Sites March 1990. Hazardous Waste Sites and the Rural Poor: A Preliminarv Assessment. .Public Policy and Education Division. Alexandria, VA.

Commission for Racial Justice. 1987. Toxic Waste and Race in the United States: A National ReDort on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. United Church of Christ.

Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. University of Illinois Press.

Johnson, Charles A. 1985. vlSuccess in Siting Solid Waste Facilities.l# Presented at the 8th Annual Madison Waste Conference, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

National Council of Churches. 1986. pesolution on Toxic Pollution in the USA with Special Concern for Its Impact in Poor and Minoritv Communities.

Norris-Hall, Lachelle. 1990. "Pollution Industries in the South and Appalachia: Economy, Environment, and Politics." Highlander Research and Education Center. N e w Market, TN.

Regan, Richard, and Mac Legerton. 1990. ttEconomic Slavery or Hazardous Wastes? Robeson County's Economic Menu" Communities in Economic Crisis: Amalachia and the South. John Gaventa, Barbara Smith, Alex Willingham, editors. Temple University Press.

16

1983. Sitins of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status in Surroundinq Communities. Washington, DC.

US General Accounting Office.

- -- - - - - - -