In the midst of a lower income neighborhood located in Pensacola, Florida, once existed a wood processing facility. The plant is long closed. But its legacy, in the form of dioxin contaminated soil, still exists today. Dioxin is a dangerous chemical, linked to cancer and other diseases. Needless to say, the neighbors of the old plant were not happy to hear that this present was left behind.

Originally, the federal EPA only tested the old factory site. When large amounts of dioxin were detected, the EPA ordered as massive soil removal effort. But not all of the dioxin was taken. Eventually, with neighborhood pressure, the EPA took soil samples from some of the neighborhood backyards. Dioxin was found in those backyards as well.

The first federal response was to suggest that this was not really bad news, and the neighbors had little to worry abut. But the feisty Floridians were not content with this response, and suspected that what was really at issue was whether the EPA was going to spend the necessary funds to move an entire community to new, dioxin-free housing. Eventually, the Pensacola neighbors prevailed, and EPA agreed to move them. All 358 of the affected community residents were relocated, at EPA expense.

This kind of large federal effort is not common. It takes a concerted effort to obtain this kind of big result. While this was an example of a striking success, there are others throughout the county. Regular people are organizing all over the county to protect their neighborhoods from the toxins and other hazards associated with noxious operations. Offending operations vary, from industrial landfills, to large incinerators, to poorly operated industrial facilities. Even highways have been the focus of this new movement, which has come to be known as the environmental justice movement.

The environmental justice movement took root over the last 10 years. The movement considers public health and safety concerns associated with the siting of certain pollution-intensive activities in economically disadvantaged communities, or communities with large minority populations. It began in reaction to the continued placement of incinerators, landfills and other noxious enterprises in poor neighborhoods, which are neighborhoods that frequently lack sufficient political muscle to block the intrusions.

In 1991, the People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit convened in Washington, D.C., to consider environmental justice concerns. It published the now famous "Principles of Environmental Justice," which contained 17 fundamental environmental rights. The organization asserted the need to ensure environmental justice; to promote economic alternatives which would contribute to the development of environmentally safe livelihoods; and to secure the "political, economic and cultural liberation" from industrial and development related poisonous activities.

These lofty thoughts were brewing in various intellectual quarters through 1994. They had no legal teeth until that year, but they made for some good discussion. In 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order Number 12898, which gave the new movement exactly what it needed: legal muscle.

Executive Order Number 12898 required every federal agency to include environmental justice as part of its mission. Federal agencies must identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects caused by their programs on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

In response to the President's Executive Order, EPA adoptedits own environmental justice regulations. He regulations expressly prohibit the siting of a facility or administering of a program in a manner that has a discriminatory effect.

Today, many other federal agencies have environmental justice requirements as well. For example, the Department of Transportation has its own rules which require that environmental justice considerations be factored into proposed transportation projects. HUD has its own environmental justice requirements pertaining to loans and grants for housing and urban development. The Navy and the Department of Defense also have environmental justice requirements.

In a recent, significant development, a federal appeals court ruled that neighborhood groups could file suit against environmental justice offenders in federal court to enforce EPA's environmental justice regulations. This recent opinion suggests that community groups have the right to block certain environmentally offensive projects if they can prove to a judge that the project will disproportionally injure their community. For business people and industry, this recent development means that new projects may be frustrated by community group opposition.

What does all of this mean? It means that no one neighborhood should have to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden caused by polluting businesses and operations. Everyone who benefits should suffer some of the pain associated with these enterprises. Historically, noxious activities were zoned in poorer neighborhoods, largely because they lacked the political muscle to block these activities. Now, the environmental justice movement creates more of an equal playing field and no one should be forced to suffer in silence.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.