Environmental Justice and the Clean Water Act: Implications for Economic Analyses of Clean Water Regulations

Tihitina Andarge, Yongjie Ji, Bonnie L. Keeler, David A. Keiser, Conor McKenzie
{"title":"Environmental Justice and the Clean Water Act: Implications for Economic Analyses of Clean Water Regulations","authors":"Tihitina Andarge, Yongjie Ji, Bonnie L. Keeler, David A. Keiser, Conor McKenzie","doi":"10.1086/727879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12898, federal agencies have been required to conduct environmental justice (EJ) analyses of federal rules and regulations. More recently, the Biden Administration has instituted several major efforts to reform regulatory review and promote a more equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. This paper seeks to understand how prior guidelines have been implemented in federal regulatory reviews related to the Clean Water Act and provide a baseline for future studies of the distributional effects of clean water regulations. We reviewed 18 regulatory impact assessments relating to the Clean Water Act conducted since 1992. Only five of these studies conducted a quantitative analysis of distributional impacts and none of the 18 rules were determined to have disproportionately adverse effects on low-income or minority communities. Anticipating that future regulatory review will require more comprehensive distributional analyses, we combine national data on the location of all regulated point sources of water pollution with demographic characteristics to develop a baseline assessment of the distribution of water pollution facilities. Overall, we find that discharge locations tend to be located in areas that are poorer, have a higher White population share, and have less education. We find that rurality partly explains this pattern. The top 40% of census block groups in terms of rural population share contain almost all water pollution discharge locations. We conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of these analyses and suggestions for future work. JEL Codes: Q50; Q52; Q53; Q56; Q58","PeriodicalId":87249,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and energy policy and the economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and energy policy and the economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727879","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12898, federal agencies have been required to conduct environmental justice (EJ) analyses of federal rules and regulations. More recently, the Biden Administration has instituted several major efforts to reform regulatory review and promote a more equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. This paper seeks to understand how prior guidelines have been implemented in federal regulatory reviews related to the Clean Water Act and provide a baseline for future studies of the distributional effects of clean water regulations. We reviewed 18 regulatory impact assessments relating to the Clean Water Act conducted since 1992. Only five of these studies conducted a quantitative analysis of distributional impacts and none of the 18 rules were determined to have disproportionately adverse effects on low-income or minority communities. Anticipating that future regulatory review will require more comprehensive distributional analyses, we combine national data on the location of all regulated point sources of water pollution with demographic characteristics to develop a baseline assessment of the distribution of water pollution facilities. Overall, we find that discharge locations tend to be located in areas that are poorer, have a higher White population share, and have less education. We find that rurality partly explains this pattern. The top 40% of census block groups in terms of rural population share contain almost all water pollution discharge locations. We conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of these analyses and suggestions for future work. JEL Codes: Q50; Q52; Q53; Q56; Q58
环境正义与《清洁水法案》:对清洁水法规的经济分析的影响
自 1994 年克林顿总统发布第 12898 号行政命令以来,联邦机构一直被要求对联邦规则和法规进行环境正义分析。最近,拜登政府开始了几项重大努力,以改革监管审查,促进环境利益和负担的更公平分配。本文旨在了解在与《清洁水法案》相关的联邦法规审查中如何执行之前的指导方针,并为今后研究清洁水法规的分配效应提供基础。我们回顾了自 1992 年以来开展的 18 项与《清洁水法案》相关的法规影响评估。这些研究中只有五项对分布影响进行了定量分析,18 项法规中没有一项被认定对低收入或少数民族社区产生过大的不利影响。考虑到未来的监管审查将需要更全面的分布分析,我们将所有受监管的水污染点源位置的全国数据与人口特征相结合,对水污染设施的分布进行了基线评估。总体而言,我们发现排放地点往往位于较贫穷、白人人口比例较高和教育程度较低的地区。我们发现,乡村地区在一定程度上解释了这种模式。农村人口比例前 40% 的普查区组几乎包含了所有的水污染排放点。最后,我们讨论了这些分析对政策的影响,并对今后的工作提出了建议。JEL Codes:Q50; Q52; Q53; Q56; Q58
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信