The town of Opportunity, MT was built in 1914 by the Anaconda Mining Company, which operated the Washoe copper smelter in Anaconda, MT. The byproducts of the smelter included lead, mercury and arsenic, which affected humans, animals and vegetation alike. As the town of Anaconda became less and less livable, the mining company decided to build a new town where mine workers could feel safe and happy. This town was appropriately named Opportunity. However, the town was also bordered by ponds fed partly by natural sources and also by smelter waste. These ponds eventually became a part of the Upper Clark Fork Superfund Site in 1983.
Another major part of the Superfund site is the Milltown Dam, which for years blocked toxic sediment from flowing down the Clark Fork River toward Missoula, a more populous and affluent community in Western Montana. In 1996, an ice jam caused a huge release of water and sediment over the Milltown Dam, causing a widespread fish kill and the need for major cleanup efforts. While implementing the cleanup, there was a disagreement about where the waste should be located. The residents of the East Missoula area vocally opposed the proposal to store waste in their community, and instead joined with other local stakeholders to suggest that the waste be shipped to Opportunity, since the land there was already contaminated.
The issues that Opportunity is facing clearly fall under the umbrella of environmental justice. University of Montana environmental studies professor Robin Saha points out that some of the people affected by this situation can be considered winners, such as the communities that are being cleaned up and the companies that have won major contracts to conduct the cleanup. However, the residents of Opportunity are definitely the "losers" in this situation, being left with all of the costs and none of the benefits.
The two major issues that are addressed in both the readings and in the case of Opportunity are the unfair treatment of a lower-income community and the lack of adequate political representation to prevent this mistreatment. First, the author quotes the following income figures: "Deer Lodge County, home to Opportunity, is one of Montana's poorer counties. In a state where the average income was $35,574 in 2004, Deer Lodge County residents made an average of $30,155 a year. In Missoula County, the figure was $37,172." This clearly shows the income disparity between Opportunity and Missoula, which coincides with Konisky: "areas with larger numbers of minority and lower-income populations are disproportionately subjected to environmental burdens." (p. 102-103) Additionally, the lack of a large minority population in Opportunity also supports Konisky's assertion that income levels may have a greater effect on environmental justice than race.
Finally, the issue that seems to have the most impact in Opportunity is the lack of organized representation by local government to protect against environmental injustices. Ringquist states that "Political power is a function of wealth, education, group organizational skills, frequent participation in the political process, and so forth. Certain citizens, particularly...the poor, have fewer of these resources." (Vig & Kraft, p. 249) According to University of Montana's Professor Saha, "Opportunity's income level, rural location and lack of local government all translate into less political power, and less ability to ward off what's being dumped on them." Saha eventually helped some residents of Opportunity to form the Opportunity Citizens Protection Association (OCPA) which has taken steps to distance the town from being associated with the waste storage decisions and to advocate for fair treatment of the town's citizens. Although the decision to store hazardous waste at Opportunity has already been made, OCPA hopes to ensure a safe and clean future for the community.
Although I am sure you already recognize this, it always shocks me how this country systematically oppresses people and communities based on notions that they are only continuing the situation that already exists. The fact that the affluent town thought that storing the toxic sediment in Opportunity because it already was affected by the waste is ludicrous, but not uncommon. This phenomenon tends to happen in almost all social issues in the United States. We constantly hear the argument that the poor do not value education, and this is often an excuse for creating voucher systems and furthering the disparity of education. Excellent article, Joanna!
ReplyDeleteHey Joanna. I found the same type of discrimination with my article-- not racial descrimination but income descrimination. I believe there is income descrimination for two reasons. 1) politicians and governments are able to convince poverty-stricken areas to store hazardous waste by offering something they need more -- money. 2) Low-income groups tend to have a lower education, and are thus not well-versed in their rights, and what harm environmental hazards can produce. Further, they tend to be less politically active- thus, according to some, they are easier to "push" around. I believe education is the best way to solve both of these problems, and indeed, the best way to solve environmental justice as a whole. Once people find voice, and are educated about the harms, politicians and businesses, those who make the decisions, listen more.
ReplyDeleteJoanna,
ReplyDeletethis is a very thorough analysis, and brings up some important environmental justice concerns. It is very interesting that this form of discrimination can leave many within the community without a means of advocating for their rights, as noted in your reference to the Vig and Kraft text. My analysis of this week's assignment is based upon some of the environmental justice concerns pertaining to race and income/class and the difficulties that the community faces in having the EPA enforce Pres. Clinton's Executive Order of 1994. Feel free to take a look :o)
Good job
-Christiana
Interesting article. I found it almost comical that the town's name is Opportunity, when they (as low-income residents) actually have an unfair political representation to create positive opportunities and fight the battle adequately. I enjoyed your article because of the trend it established of low-income injustices. Most articles I found were related to minority injustices. It is disheartening that the more affluent would burden the less wealthy(NIMBY) with knowing that they do not have proper representation or education to fight it.
ReplyDeleteOnce again,
Good Job
A nice example. I find it interesting that the mining company built the town and then built a new town for the workers so they would be safe from pollutants. Even though it eventually became polluted the idea was to provide them a safe place and I am assuming they were low-income workers so that part actually seems like environmental justice.
ReplyDelete