Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rens20

Download by: [24.61.70.185] Date: 19 December 2017, At: 12:42

Environmental Sociology

ISSN: (Print) 2325-1042 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rens20

Constructing insignificance: critical raceperspectives on institutional failure inenvironmental justice communities

Lauren Richter

To cite this article: Lauren Richter (2017): Constructing insignificance: critical race perspectiveson institutional failure in environmental justice communities, Environmental Sociology, DOI:10.1080/23251042.2017.1410988

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1410988

Published online: 19 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Constructing insignificance: critical race perspectives on institutional failurein environmental justice communitiesLauren Richter

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

ABSTRACTEnvironmental justice (EJ) literature rarely offers an explicit theory of race to explain processesof disparate environmental exposure and recourse in non-white and low-income commu-nities. Failing to do so, analyses of environmental inequality risk eliding a central driver ofenvironmental racism. Based on a case study of a contested birth defect cluster in California,this article traces the ways in which the evidence of environmental health harms are renderedconceptually invisible by the institutions mandated to protect public health and the environ-ment. Turning to a theoretical model of contested illness mobilization, I demonstrate thevalue of critical race perspectives to clarify the production and maintenance of intersecting,cumulative harms without recourse in communities of color. Centered on racially veridicalanalyses, EJ scholarship can more precisely analyze the recalcitrance of dominant groupinterests. Ultimately, this enables theorization of the distinct landscape of exposure andrecourse in subaltern versus favored bodies and space.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 2 March 2017Accepted 24 November 2017

KEYWORDSEnvironmental justice;environmental racism;critical race theory;environmental health;dominant epidemiologicalparadigm

Introduction

‘Hospital officials told Magdalena that the babywouldn’t live a year, but she didn’t want to believeit. Then, one morning when America was nearly fivemonths old, her lips turned purple. Concluding thatparamedics would consider a rescue futile, Magdalenadrove the baby to the hospital herself and insistedthat all efforts be made to save her. For a few days,America survived, tethered to machines. Then shedied in her mother’s arms.’ – Jacques Leslie, ‘What’sKilling the Babies of Kettleman City?’

Following Bullard (1990, 1994), Bullard and Wright(2009), Mascarenhas (2007), Pellow (2000, 2007), Pulido(1996a, 2000, 2015, 2016), and Pulido, Kohl, and Cotton(2016), this paper argues that scholarship on EJ, andspecifically environmental health, can more explicitlyengage with race and racism. Without intentionally orcritically theorizing race, scholarship on environmentalinequality may overlook the centrality of racial domina-tion and the active means by which dominant groupsassert power to protect their material interests (Bracey2016; Pulido 1996a, 2015). This omission delimits theideological and material power of systemic racial oppres-sion in the US. Explicit engagement with race as anadaptive ideological and material process avoids color-blind assumptions that minimize the structural durabilityof racism and the utility of racial constructs for whites(Bonilla-Silva 2010; Bracey 2016; Mills 1997; Feagin 2013,2014; Pulido 2015). This paper shows the analytical utilityof critical race perspectives for theorizing the persistent

failure of institutions tasked with the protection of envir-onmental quality and human health in low-income com-munities and communities of color.

Scholars have long argued that EJ research risks limit-ing its theoretical and policy relevance by focusing on theexistence of racially disproportionate outcomes withoutscrutiny of the political economic contexts shaping envir-onmental decision-making and the production of envir-onmental science (Bullard and Wright 2009, 2012; Cole1995; Harrison 2016; Pellow 2000; Pulido 1996a, 2016).Thus, it is important for scholars to investigate the com-plexity of both environmental inequality (Pellow 2000)and environmental racism (Pulido 2016) as adaptive pro-cesses that harm some while enriching others.

In recent work, Pulido (2015) writes that while theconcept of white privilege has gained acceptancesince the 1990s, this expansion has led to a ‘contrac-tion of what is publically recognized as racism in theU.S.’ (810). Mascarenhas (2007) and Pulido (2015) attri-bute this de-politicization of racism to neoliberalreform, aligned with Bonilla-Silva’s (2010) colorblindracism which legitimates the persistence of whitesupremacy by de-politicizing structural racism(Lipsitz 2006). Pulido (2015, 2016) argues for moreexplicit examination of structural white supremacyand racial capitalism as drivers of environmentalinequality and racism. The concept of racial capital-ism, originally developed by Cedric Robinson (1983/2000), situates race as a central ideological and mate-rial mechanism of capital accumulation (Robinson

CONTACT Lauren Richter richter.l@husky.neu.edu

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY, 2017https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1410988

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

1983/2000; Feagin 2013, 2014; Pulido 2015, 2016).Illustrating the concept of racial capitalism, criticallegal scholarship by powell and Watt (2010) andWerner (2015) demonstrate the strategic and evolvingestablishment of corporate personhood from theReconstruction era to the present, demonstratinghow the expansion of corporate privilege is a toolthat disproportionately and intentionally facilitateswhite wealth accumulation. Based on these concep-tual insights into race and capital accumulation, scho-lars can more explicitly analyze the drivers ofenvironmental racism and inequality, asking howrace and racism operate as axes of power that servespecific groups and interests.1 I draw on the case ofthe Kettleman City birth defect cluster to show howracism constructs ‘parallel universes’ (Benjamin 2016)that shape quantitatively and qualitatively distinctexposure and likelihood for substantive recourse inEJ communities.

The arguments in this paper are grounded in acase study of one period of contentious activity ina multi-decade struggle for EJ in Kettleman City,California. Kettleman City is located in the SanJoaquin Valley in Central California. Between 2007and 2009, residents of this rural farmworker townidentified 11 babies born with structural birthdefects. Three of these cases resulted in infantdeaths (Leslie 2010; Perkins 2015). While I detailappeals to institutional recourse sought by thiscommunity and affiliated NGOs, the analyticalfocus of this paper is on the institutional responsesto these appeals. Rather than analyze the experi-ence and choices of affected residents, I scrutinizethe institutional logics that adaptively renderedharms to certain bodies scientifically invisible andthus non-actionable (Checker 2007). This pivot,from analysis of movement tactics to theorizationof structural, elite, and white resistance to equity,is one of the strengths of engaging critical racetheory. To accomplish this, I describe a particularwindow of activity in the ongoing history of envir-onmental contamination and mobilization inKettleman City (Perkins 2015). This case studydraws on participant-observation with NGO organi-zers and attorneys working in Kettleman City,observation of public health officials in communitymeetings, and content analysis of governmentdocuments and media coverage.2

To begin, I examine scholarship on EJ, health,and critical race theory. Next, I present a casestudy of the contested birth defect cluster inKettleman City. Following Mascarenhas (2007),Pellow (2000) and Pulido, Kohl, and Cotton (2016),I show how investigation of longitudinal and multi-scalar environmental racism allows us to analyze theracialized processes through which toxic exposuresare rendered invisible. Finally, I present the results

of my analysis and discuss the implications forfuture scholarship, calling for increased scrutiny ofintersectional privilege and domination.

Literature review

Environmental justice and health scholarship

Decades of research confirm what EJ communities havelong observed, communities of color and low-incomecommunities reside in closer proximity to environmentalhazards than white communities (Bullard 1990; Bullardet al. 2007; GAO 1983; Mohai and Saha 2007; UCC 1987).Quantitative research confirms that in California alone,communities of color face systematic, disproportionateexposure to unsafe air and drinking water quality due tolocal and regional pollution (Balazs et al. 2011;Hall, Brajer, and Lurmann 2008; London, Huang, andZagofsky 2011; Morello-Frosch and Jesdale 2006;Srebotnjak and Rotkin-Ellman 2014). Furthermore,extant literature on the social determinants of healthfinds higher rates of preventable disease in communitiesof color associated with non-voluntary environmentalexposures (WHO 2016; IBCERCC 2013; President’sCancer Panel 2009). While there are certainly local placesand particular episodes of time where US EJ commu-nities have achieved substantive relief from hazardousexposures, on the national and perhaps most impor-tantly, global scale, trends in non-voluntary environmen-tal risks show little sign of substantive abatement;rather, exposures and adverse health outcomes appearto be accelerating and remain most potent in low-income communities and communities of color(Bullard et al. 2007; IBCERCC 2013; UCC 1987; Pellow2010; WHO 2016).

Scholarship on EJ movement engagement with thestate through regulatory and policy initiatives finds thatthe state has failed to produce substantive health-pro-tective regulatory reform (Harrison 2011, 2016; Liévanos2012; London, Sze, and Liévanos 2008; Perkins 2015). Instudies of state response to community contaminationand industrial accidents in EJ communities, scholarsdetail the ill-preparedness of first responders, andfurthermore the manner in which agency responsescan actually worsen particular dangerous situations.This is typified by disasters such as Hurricane Katrina,water contamination in Flint, MI, and chronic pesticidedrift in the San Joaquin Valley (Bullard and Wright 2009,2012; Carrera 2014; Harrison 2011; Mascarenhas 2007;Perkins 2015).

In cases of acute and chronic environmental con-tamination identified by EJ communities themselves,a significant body of literature examines the politics ofscientific claims-making (Brown and Mikkelsen 1990;Bullard 1990; Checker 2007; Erikson 1976; Edelstein1988; Harrison 2006, 2011; Levine 1982; Ottinger2013; Ottinger and Cohen 2011). Contaminated com-munities identifying adverse health effects are often

2 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

required to produce particular forms of scientific evi-dence in order to access various paths of institutionalrecourse through regulatory and legal processes(Corburn 2005; Ottinger and Cohen 2011; Gibbs2002; Murphy 2006). Therefore, the production – orabsence – of evidence recognized by the state ascapable of initiating substantive remediation, cessa-tion, or the penalization of responsible parties, pro-vides an important site for examining environmentalinjustice (Checker 2007; Ottinger 2013). Brown (2007/2013) offers a framework for characterizing the rangeof obstacles lay people, public health oriented scien-tists, and advocates face in challenging the ‘statusquo of science and government policy and publicunderstanding’ which he terms the DominantEpidemiological Paradigm (DEP) (18). For Brown(2007/2013), the DEP is both a model and a process,comprised of a range of institutions positioned todiagnose and treat a disease, but additionally themedia, universities, and regulatory agencies (18).Figure 1 depicts a simplified model of the DEP, repre-senting the institutions involved in disease discoveryand the multiple arenas actors must engage to chal-lenge the status quo (Brown 2007/2013, 18).

The DEP is understood to be a product of a rangeof factors, including, the growth of professionalauthority, medical dominance, and ‘scientization.’ ForBrown, scientization denotes the ways that scienceand technocratic decision making have become anincreasingly dominant force in shaping public atti-tudes, media coverage, and most particularly socialpolicy and regulation (2007/2013). Power plays a cen-tral role in both the stability of DEP processes, andaligning DEP logics to the interests of corporate

actors. Brown argues that through scientization,industry actors are able to exert control over scientificagenda setting, seen in applying scientific logic topolitical or moral questions, and further de-legitimat-ing questions that are not conducive to scientificreasoning (2007/2013, 19).

While studies of community contamination andenvironmental health attend to the rarity of ‘success’and the structural barriers to substantive interventionand remediation (Bullard 1990; Bullard 1994; Brown2007/2013; Brown and Mikkelsen 1990; Levine 1982),critical race theorists warn against characterizing cir-cumscribed successes as indicators of progress (Bell2004; Feagin 2013; Feagin and Elias 2013). For exam-ple, the triumphalism of Hollywood films such as ErinBrockovich and A Civil Action align with dominantpluralist narratives that reassure some publics of thereliability of science and the law to implicate ‘badactors.’ Scholars in environmental sociology, Scienceand Technology Studies (STS), and EJ are increasinglystudying cases without clear outcomes or successes(Auyero and Swistun 2008; Bell 2016; Bullard andWright 2012; Harrison 2011; Ottinger 2013). Thisgrowing area of research is significant as global healthand environmental threats, such as chemical contam-ination, climate change, and pollution-based causes ofdeath, show limited signs of substantive abatement(Landrigan et al. 2017).

However, the analytical focus of studies of commu-nity contamination tend to remain on the experiencesand decision-making logics of the individuals and com-munities experiencing the hazard, rather than primarilyscrutinizing how actors and institutions maintain theproduction of hazards in the face of evidence of their

Figure 1. Brown’s (2007/2013) dominant epidemiological paradigm.

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

negative impact (important exceptions include Bullardand Wright 2012; Harrison 2006, 2011). This paper con-tributes to scholarship focused on industry and stateretrenchment in the face of environmental and humanhealth harm (Bell and York 2010; McCright and Dunlap2010, 2011; Harrison 2011; Murphy 2017). I argue in thisarticle that there is a need for research investigating thestructural production of extreme environments, envir-onments that necessitate the production of extremeadverse health outcomes for their residents (Bullardand Wright 2012; Saxton 2015). Finally, followingBullard and Wright (2009, 2012) and Pulido (2015), Ishow that the complexity of EJ outcomes should notpreclude analyses of the elite actors within dominantracial groups who persistently generate, profit from, andundermine substantive environmental remediation andrecourse for communities of color.

Critical race perspectives

A theory of race is inevitably embedded in any theo-retical concepts that are developed from or applied toracial phenomena. – Glenn Bracey (2016)

If scholarship in environmental sociology and EJ doesnot critically define race, our analyses miss a centralaxis of power (Crenshaw 1991; Pulido 2015). Toaccomplish this, critical race perspectives, includingintersectionality, offer rich theoretical frameworksbased on decades of scholarship within and outsideof the field of sociology. Critical race perspectivesexplicitly examine stable structural inequalities andthe fluid ideologies that justify them over time(Feagin 2013, 2014; Delgado and Stefancic 2012).Puzzling over the persistence of racial inequities wellbeyond the civil rights victories of the 1950s and1960s, critical legal scholars sought to understandhow racial systems could be simultaneously stableand fluid (Bell 1980, 1993, 2004; Crenshaw 1991;powell 2012). Their analyses documented how civilrights laws were undermined fiscally, lost their enfor-ceability due to impossible standards of proof (e.g.Alexander v. Sandoval), or came to primarily benefitgroups other than African Americans, such as whitewomen (Bell 2004; Delgado and Stefancic 2012).Central critical race theory (CRT) insights include: theneed to re-define conceptualizations of race, a call forhistories from the perspectives of people of color, anda critique of liberalism stemming from the failure ofprocedural colorblindness to remediate substantiveracial oppression (Delgado and Stefancic 2012).

A major challenge in analyzing race is that currentconceptions of racism, ‘do not give us a way tofathom this process’ (Haney-López 2015, 46). For cri-tical race scholars, dominant narratives around racismcollapse the meaning of race and racism to simplifyand obscure their function (Pulido 2015). Today domi-nant theoretical models of racism include: individual-

level racism as prejudice, structural/institutional-levelracism that links historical mistreatment of nonwhitesto persistent unequal outcomes (Haney-López 2015),and implicit or colorblind racism operating covertlythrough a series of dominant frames (Eduardo Bonilla-Silva 2010). Benjamin (2016) suggests conceptualizingof race as a technology capable of creating ‘parallelsocial universes and premature death’ (149). Thus, CRTshifts from dominant conceptions of racism as indivi-dual or group prejudices based on skin color, towardmore realist conceptions of race that counter the‘popular disbelief in the power of whiteness’ (Coates2017).

To situate my case study, I draw on the theore-tical frames proposed by Charles Mills and KimberléCrenshaw. Mills’s (1997) racial contract framework isuseful for understanding the structural logic of theSan Joaquin Valley as an ‘extreme environment’(Olson 2010). Crenshaw’s (1991) intersectionality fra-mework helps to understand the persistent failureof institutions to protect the residents of KettlemanCity.

Theorizing conceptual invisibility: the racialcontract and intersectionality

Critical philosopher Charles Mills’s (1997) concept ofthe ‘Racial Contract’ provides insight into assumptionsabout what happens in contaminated EJ communitiesand why. For Mills (2007), if ‘systemic social oppres-sion’ is left unaddressed, scholarship risks adoptingpluralist conceptions of racism or sexism in the USas deviations from an ‘essentially egalitarian andinclusive’ political landscape (17). The problem withdoing so is that the very ‘long actual history of sys-temic gender and racial subordination’ is actually thenorm in the US, not the exception (Mills 2007, 17).Implicitly approaching cases of environmental racismand community contamination with the assumptionthat they are deviations (or that the experience andstate response to contaminated communities mightbe fundamentally uniform) invokes pluralist assump-tions of the state and rational progress.3

Critical race scholarship argues that race is and hasalways been an ideological and material means forcapital accumulation by Europeans and European-Americans. For Europeans and European-Americans inthe Americas, the violent demarcation and exploitationof bodies and land was and is currently justified by acomplex and continually fluid set of ideological justifi-cations and racial frames, from Catholicism to the waron drugs (Alexander 2012; Robinson 1983/2000; Mills1997, 2007; Feagin 2013; Haney-López 1997, 2015). ForMills, the invention, and often violent, demarcation ofwhom and what is white has always been about mate-rial interests and power. Thus, Mills’s (1997) RacialContract entails:

4 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

. . .the differential privileging of the whites as a groupwith respect to the nonwhites as a group, the exploi-tation of their bodies, land, and resources, and thedenial of equal socioeconomic opportunities tothem. (11).

Intersectional approaches to persistent, relationalsocial inequalities are frequently understood as emer-ging within US Black Feminist projects in the 1960sand 1970s (Collins 2015). Collins argues that seriousconsideration of critical race/class/gender analyses aredeeply rooted in social justice organizing centered oncountering multiple forms of inequality. Intersectionalwork within social movements and academia con-verged in legal scholarship by Crenshaw (1991), whocalled for research that does not subordinate onefacet of a hierarchical structure (e.g. race or class) foranother (e.g. gender). For Crenshaw (1989, 1991) andCollins (1991/2002, 2015), conceptualizing how axesof difference intersect and align is necessary to under-stand why some subject positions are foreclosed fromrecourse within dominant frameworks. For those sys-tematically exposed to environmental hazards, theprocesses of exposure and appeals for institutionalrecourse are formed in relation to distinct dimensionsof an individual or group’s broader subject position(Crenshaw 1991; Murphy 2006). This nuance can beoverlooked in EJ literature that turns on quantitativehypothesis testing. Applying intersectional and criticalrace perspectives to environmental health struggles incommunities of color facilitates examining whatsocial, economic, political, or exposure structuresremain stable over time, for whom, and why.

From a CRT perspective, I ask if extant US regulatoryframeworks are repeatedly ‘failing’ in communities ofcolor, or are they instead fluidly repurposed to sub-stantively serve increasingly circumscribed favoredsubjects and space? There are important models forsuch inquiry in EJ and health scholarship (Bullard 1990;Harrison 2006, 2011; Mascarenhas 2012; Murphy 2006;Pellow 2000; Pellow and Brehm 2013; Park and Pellow2011; Pulido 2015, 2016; Pulido, Kohl, and Cotton2016), and based on this scholarship I investigatehow and why landscapes of exposure and recourseoften differ by subject position. CRT offers valuableinsights on the persistent, and for some measures,growing socio-economic inequalities between racesand classes in the US today (Crenshaw 1991; Bell1993, 2004). CRT analyses are unique in their focus oncounter-movements or reassertions by those seekingto secure and maintain power (Feagin 2013, 2014).Therefore, based on an adaptation of Brown’s DEP,the following case study and discussion focus on theimportance of the entire axis of racial oppression, thusincluding inquiry into how racially dominant groupsmay experience environmental recourse and remedia-tion. To this end, I offer a conceptual model to helpidentify structural exposure and response for favored

groups and space, in contrast to subaltern groups andspace. Critical theorization of race that engages withthe meaning of persistent white supremacy bringsclarity to understanding the construction, mainte-nance, and acceleration of environmental injustice incommunities and spaces of color (Pulido 2015; Pulido2016). Following a description of the Kettleman Citycluster, I adapt Brown’s (2007/2013) conceptual modelto show how subject position undergirds the land-scape of toxic exposure and subsequent appeals forstate assistance.

Constructing insignificance: a case study

The San Joaquin valley

As early as 1779, the Spanish Empire establishedCatholic missions along the coast of what wouldeventually become the state of California. The missionmovement in this region reduced the Indigenouspopulation by an estimated 33% of its pre-Europeansize (Lipsitz 2006; Orfalea 2014). Well beyond thespread of disease, the Spanish intentionally decimatedthe Indigenous population through the cloistering ofyoung women to prevent pregnancy, in addition tothe denial of available medicine and rampant murderof Indigenous people (Orfalea 2014; Madley 2016).After Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821,large portions of California came under Mexican con-trol, and thereafter, growing waves of European-Americans were incentivized to ‘settle’ the Westthrough racist federal government legal regimesdesigned to secure exclusive European-Americanownership of land and natural resources such asgold (Lipsitz 2006; White 1991). After the state ofCalifornia was established in 1850 following theMexican-American War, California governor PeterBurnett stated that in the interest of white men, heintended to exterminate all California Indians (Madley2016).

Unlike other areas of the US with long histories ofsmaller-scale, family farming, the San Joaquin Valley(hereafter SJV) was dramatically reconfigured forlarge-scale agricultural production in the mid to late-nineteenth century by private industry, the state, andthe federal government (Arax and Wartzman 2003;Gilmore 2008; Harrison 2006; Nash 2006; Reisner1993; White 1991). Large-scale water irrigation pro-jects, the institutionalization of non-white migrantlabor – from Chinese and Japanese workers toFilipino and Mexican workers – and eventual indus-trial scale implementation of chemical inputs, definethe historic and present-day character of corporateagriculture in the SJV (Kushner and Corona 1975;Pannu 2012; Gilmore 2008; Harrison 2006, 2011;Pulido 1996b). This transformation of ecologies, landownership, and the production of transient labor was

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

possible with vast federal investment and incentivestructures in support of European-American/white-owned enterprise (Arax and Wartzman 2003; Gilmore2008; Harrison 2006, 2011; Nash 2006; White 1991). In1921, the largest body of fresh water in California waspurchased by the Boswells, a Georgia cotton planta-tion family, who drained this SJV lake and built thelargest privately owned farm in the world (Arax andWartzman 2003). Thus, by the early 1900s, colonialand American plantation logics reconfigured centralCalifornia into a space and population in service ofcorporate production, racially codified into Americanlaw (Haney-López 1997, 2015; Kushner and Corona1975; Lipsitz 2006).

Today residents of the SJV live in what theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls an‘extreme non-attainment zone’ (Hall, Brajer, andLurmann 2008). This euphemism means that nearlyevery day of the year, people living and working hereare exposed air quality known to harm human health(Hall, Brajer, and Lurmann 2008; Huang and London2012; ALA 2017). While rural Valley residents experi-ence regular droughts (Medina 2014), the tap watermany have access to is so contaminated by agricul-tural and animal factory farm chemical waste thatthose who are able, purchase bottled water (Balazset al. 2011; Huang and London 2012; Harrison 2011).4

In addition to industrial scale agriculture, the Valley isthe nation’s largest dairy producing region, and thesite of nearly 80% of the oil and gas extraction inCalifornia (Srebotnjak and Rotkin-Ellman 2014). Thisregion is therefore simultaneously the nation’s pro-duce basket, the key site of California’s fossil fuelproduction, and a terminus for hazardous waste andurban sewage sludge (London, Huang, and Zagofsky2011; Huang and London 2012). The people who live,work, and are incarcerated in this region are some ofthe most economically and politically vulnerable inthe entire country (Harrison 2006, 2011; London,Huang, and Zagofsky 2011; Pannu 2012; Pulido1996b; Saxton 2015). The structure and logic of rurallabor and land use in California has always favoredprivate, white capital accumulation. This is evidencedin patterns of legal exemption alone, including wide-spread regulatory exemptions from basic environ-mental laws granted to the oil and gas industry, andthe exemption of farmworkers from protectionsgranted by federal labor laws (Arax and Wartzman2003; Harrison 2011; Pulido 1996b; Lipsitz 2006; U.S.Congress NEPA 2005).

The Kettleman city birth defect cluster

At least three generations of Kettleman City residentshave organized around the negative environmentaland health impacts of living near the largest Class Ihazardous waste facility in the West (Cole and Foster

2001; Cole and Bowyer 1991; Perkins 2015).5 In theearly 1990s, this community successfully preventedChemical Waste Management, Inc. (hereafter CWM)from building a toxic waste incinerator at theKettleman Hills landfill using organizing and litigationstrategies (Cole and Foster 2001; Cole and Bowyer1991; Corwin 1991). In 1994, EJ organizations filed aCivil Rights complaint with the US EPA due to all threeof California’s hazardous waste landfills operating inLatino communities. Over a decade later, still strug-gling with the environmental health impacts of resid-ing 3.2 miles from this landfill (in addition to theextant environmental conditions in the SJV), theKettleman City grassroots group, El Pueblo Para elAire y Agua Limpio (El Pueblo) and the NGO,Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice(Greenaction), conducted a community health-survey.This revealed a high number of babies born withserious structural birth defects. Beginning in 2007, ElPueblo and Greenaction found 11 cases of structuralbirth defects occurring within an 18-month period,three of these cases resulted in infant deaths(Greenaction 2016; Perkins 2015; NRDC 2011).Critically, only the community and NGO allies col-lected the requisite data to determine that an unu-sually high number of babies had died of fatal birthdefects in the community. Neither the state depart-ment of public health nor the state birth defect mon-itoring program discovered or investigated this clusterwithout external pressure. During this same time per-iod, CWM was in the process of seeking permits tosignificantly expand the Kettleman Hills facility.Residents asked state regulators to investigate thecommunity identified birth defects and deaths priorto permitting the expansion of the facility.

Initially, state agencies were not only unrespon-sive, but according to advocates, they denied theexistence structural birth defects and infant fatalitiesin Kettleman City. After two years of local outcry,community organized press conferences, and consis-tent pressure by allied EJ groups, the state formallyresponded to the situation in Kettleman City. In2009, the California Department of Public Health(CDPH) conducted an analysis of regional birthdefects. In 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger directedCDPH to investigate the community’s concerns(CDPH and CBDMP 2011), through environmentalmonitoring and medical interviews with affectedresidents. Retroactively, the California Birth DefectMonitoring program identified an unusually highnumber of birth defects in this area between 2007and 2009 (CDPH 2010). Initial findings emphasizedthat such adverse health effects are often due toindividual lifestyle choices, including smoking anddrinking alcohol. Ultimately, the state’s investigationdetermined that the town’s birth defects varied intype, concluded that the cases must be unrelated to

6 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

one another and thus had no identifiable environ-mental cause (CDPH 2010).

Advocates, attorneys, and community membersattributed the state’s failure to find a common envir-onmental cause to a range of typical shortcomingswith public health agency health studies (Brown andMikkelsen 1990; Fagin 2013; Scammell and Howard2015; Wing 1994). These include the small size ofthe community, fewer than 1,500 people, which caneasily render each birth defect statistically insignifi-cant when combined with county-level health data.State health analyses at the county-level also fore-close an examination of the spatial relationshipbetween the town and proximate dump, a standardcritique of using county as a unit of analysis in lieu ofmore accurate spatial analyses in quantitative EJresearch (Mohai and Saha 2007; Bullard et al. 2007).The affected mothers in Kettleman City repeatedlyasked to have their blood biomonitored, and thestate has never provided this testing. One professorin the University of California system turned downrequests for biomonitoring assistance, saying thatsuch testing would not be able to prove the causeof the birth defects.6 While this is accurate, it is notuncommon for communities experiencing water con-tamination in the US to demand and receive biomo-nitoring by state departments of public health,sympathetic NGOs, or academics.7

In response to pressure from El Pueblo and alliedNGOs, the state eventually mandated environmentalmonitoring by Cal EPA and CDPH. The monitoring wasmethodologically problematic, as the state’s delayedresponse meant that environmental sampling con-ducted in 2010 was over two years after the potentialenvironmental exposures would have transpired.Beyond the state’s inability to retroactively measureand account for cumulative exposures, public interestattorneys and the affected community raised furthermethodological concerns about industry involvement.In 2010, when the air and water monitoring was con-ducted by the state, this was done in partnership withCWM. Furthermore, since the Kettleman Hills facilitywas approaching capacity, and it was not operating atnormal capacity at the time environmental monitor-ing data was collected pertaining to the state investi-gation. Thus, El Pueblo and advocates observed thatthe monitoring results were not representative of thepotential levels of exposures Kettleman City residentsexperienced in the mid-2000s. Notably, it is the normfor polluting industries to conduct their own environ-mental emissions monitoring and in this case CWMhad a say in where monitors were placed and whensamples were taken. Thus, despite CWM consistentlypaying fines for operating in violation of its permits,not reporting toxic waste spills, and using laboratoryequipment that was not properly calibrated (DTSC2016; Perkins 2015), CWM retains the privilege of

remaining the primary source of data on the environ-mental emissions of their own waste facility.

In 2014, CWM was granted a permit to expand theKettleman Hills facility by the Department of ToxicSubstances Control (DTSC). No cause was ever estab-lished for the cluster. Recently El Pueblo andGreenaction filed a Title VI Civil Rights complaintagainst Cal EPA and DTSC, and in 2016 all partiesengaged in a settlement process. As part of the set-tlement, Cal EPA and DTSC indicated that if they areable to secure funding they will pursue communitybiomonitoring and seek to connect Kettleman City towater from the nearby California aqueduct (Cal EPAand DTSC 2016). Whether these community requestsare fulfilled remains to be seen.

Analysis

Scholarship on EJ movements and community con-tamination frequently centers on the mobilization oflay people and the suite of tactics employed to securesome form of legal or regulatory recognition andrelief (Brown 2007/2013; Fagin 2013; Gibbs 2002;Harrison 2011; Levine 1982). This literature is impor-tant in analyzing the dynamics that may contribute toa particular success, and can serve as inspiration forcommunity strategy in the face of unresponsive stateagencies or state investigations (Brown and Mikkelsen1990; Fagin 2013; Levine 1982). Additionally, as theworks of Auyero and Swistun (2008, 2009), Bell (2016),Ottinger (2013), and Fagin (2013) reveal, there is sig-nificant value in examining cases of environmentalexposure and harm that might be interpreted asunsuccessful with regard to the response of thestate or polluter(s). Using Brown’s original DEPmodel (Figure 1), the Kettleman City birth defectstruggle might be explained as having failed due toweak grassroots organization, ineffective framedeployment, poor legal strategy, even inadequatescientific knowledge. However, Kettleman City andallied SJV EJ groups command long-term place-based networks, experienced organizers and attor-neys, and scientifically well-supported campaigns(Cole 1995; Cole and Foster 2001; Ganz 2000, 2009;Perkins 2012, 2015; Harrison 2006, 2011; Pulido 1996b;London, Sze, and Liévanos 2008). Thus, this casedraws attention to the importance of adapting theo-retical models to account for the obstinance of thestate and polluting industries in the face of evidenceof environmental health harm.

Recourse or retrenchment

I merge Brown’s DEP (2007/2013) with critical raceperspectives to map the multi-level barriers faced bysubaltern subjects in securing institutional recourse inFigure 2. Applying the DEP framework to the

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

unresolved case in Kettleman City reveals a distinctionbetween experiences of toxic exposure and institu-tional confrontation based on subject position(Bullard and Wright 2012; Murphy 2017). On the left,I depict a subaltern population and space. Based onthe Kettleman City case, I list circumstances capable ofundermining recourse under intersecting axes ofoppression: constant exposure to hazardous chemi-cals and working conditions, residential instability,seasonal employment, poor or non-existent healthcare, uncertain discoveries of health effects or envir-onmental contamination, limited media attention dueto factors such as racial bias or rural context, languagebarriers – especially for Indigenous Central Americanfarmworkers who speak neither English nor Spanish,inadequate or inconclusive monitoring or surveillancedata, normative regulatory non-compliance withenvironmental law and health guidelines, all in addi-tion to the potential for job loss or much worse forundocumented workers who voice complaints. On theright, I depict circumstances more likely for a favoredpopulation and space: the potential for discrete peri-ods of pre-exposure and pre-discovery, sympatheticmedia attention, stable employment, land ownership,availability of data on air and water quality andhuman health trends, access to health care, less likelyto reside in close proximity to multiple active pollut-ing industries, experience some regulatory respon-siveness, and increased likelihood for scientific andlegal recourse.8

The aim of this diagram is to illustrate the theore-tical value of including critical race perspectives inenvironmental sociological analyses. CRT illuminatesthe ways in which intersectional axes of oppressioncan render appeals to scientific, legal or regulatoryrecourse futile (Crenshaw 1989, 1991). To this end,the three boxes on the right-hand side of Figure 2draw attention to the limitations of micro-level, meth-odological debates on the statistical significance ofbirth defect trends, for example. Research and regula-tions that turn on the statistical significance of narrowmodels elide the state-sanctioned positioning ofbodies of color in poorly regulated jobs and spacesof extreme environmental ‘non-compliance.’ If multi-national corporate agriculture and unconventional oiland gas extraction can continue to operate withexemptions from environmental regulation (e.g. U.S.Energy Policy Act 2005), why would one expect thosesame federal and state regulatory regimes to inter-vene in the logical impacts of the industrial emissionsthey exempt from governance? In the following sec-tion, I briefly isolate two aspects of Figure 2 thatillustrate how structural racism undermines the verypossibility of institutional recourse for residents ofKettleman City: pre-discovery and expert knowledge.

Pre-discoveryThe top of the diagram begins with the state of pre-discovery, reflecting the dominant set of policies, publicunderstanding, and scientific data pertaining to an

Figure 2. An adapted dominant epidemiological paradigm from a critical race perspective.

8 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

adverse health outcome. The possibility of challengingthe state of knowledge pre- and post-discovery is extre-mely difficult in Kettleman City, in part because, in thisextreme environment, it is nearly impossible to distin-guish between pre- and post-exposure. The very idea ofpre- and post-exposure carries an assumption of a clean,non-health threatening environment existing at onepoint; this is not feasible in ‘parallel social universe’that characterizes the SJV (Benjamin 2016).

As described, the construction of the SJV as amassive industrial production zone (Harrison 2006) isthe product of a century of massive federal and cor-porate collaboration, made possible through racistlegal regimes governing land ownership, labor, andimmigration (Haney-López 1997; Lipsitz 2006; White1991). Residents of Kettleman City are exposed toindustrial hazards at work and in their homes by theoperations that encircle their small town: oil and gasproduction on one side, industrial agriculture on allothers, 3.2 miles from the largest hazardous wastefacility in the West. Residents are exposed to multipletypes of direct chemical hazards, and ambient hazar-dous air water quality. Limited buffers exist betweenindustrial land uses and places like schools and hos-pitals. The buffer zones providing limited protectionto schools and hospitals from aerial pesticide applica-tion represent multi-decade, adversarial campaignsagainst regulatory agencies deeply tied to the multi-national corporations they govern (CRPE 2011;Harrison 2006, 2011). Thus, given the daily conditionsfaced by SJV residents, the very concept of pre- andpost-discovery may bestow an innocence to state,industry, and scientific ignorance that betrays theintentional production and neglect of contaminatedenvironments and concomitant bodies.

ExpertiseThe need for expert validation posed an additionalchallenge for El Pueblo and allies confronting the DEP.Regulatory and state public health approaches to datacollection and analysis do not align with the realitiesof hazardous chemical exposure. While the interge-nerational and synergistic capacities of carcinogenicand endocrine disrupting compounds are increasinglyknown (Brody et al. 2006; Colborn, Dumanoski, andMyers 1996; Rudel et al. 2007), the health effectsfound in Kettleman City were initially implied to resultfrom the lifestyle choices of individual mothers. Aftersignificant outcry by the community and NGO part-ners to this initial finding, the state released a finalreport concluding that the birth defects were unu-sually high for a period, but not environmentallycaused (Cal EPA and CDPH 2011; Perkins 2015).Regarding issues of causation in the Kettleman birthdefect cluster, it is nearly impossible to isolate a singlesource, moment, or duration of a hazardous exposure

in the SJV, due to cumulative chemical exposuresacross all environmental media. Additionally, a birthdefect, infant death, or even childhood cancer are notacute health effects traceable to discrete exposures,especially retroactively, even if there were a ‘pre-exposure’ environment free of contamination. Thisdifficulty is magnified by the fact that regionalemployers maintain labor conditions that undermineresidential stability, place-based rootedness, and qual-ity health care.

When community members first raised concernabout the health patterns they discovered, state officialsdenied the presence of such a cluster, even that anybabies had died in Kettleman City due to severe birthdefect complications. As a result, at press conferences,and public meetings, mothers carried large photo-graphs of the affected infants as proof of their existence.After years of continuous community and advocatepressure, CDPH and Cal EPA eventually conducted ana-lyses with mixed results and ultimate conclusions thatthere was no environmental cause of the cluster. Thisultimately foreclosed a series of institutional options forrecourse or remedy in Kettleman City.9 As Murphy(2006) provocatively asks, who legitimately observesand experiences exposure? Not only were residentsand El Pueblo dismissed as valid knowledge producers,but the dismissal of their data stands in striking contrastto the deferential relationship between the state andpolluting industries regarding emissions data. Industrymonitoring data is not only accepted by the state, but itis often the authoritative producer of what ultimatelybecomes state data (Cal EPA and CDPH 2011).Regarding requests for biomonitoring, state officialsdeclined claiming that too much time had transpiredsince the pregnancies, and furthermore that everyonehas traces of chemicals in their bodies (Cal EPA andCDPH 2011). The claim that all bodies have traceamounts of chemicals in the context of biomonitoringis a frequently used frame by polluting industries andstate agencies to undermine both the need for andresults of human biomonitoring. Thus, the need for acertain type of expertise challenged this case in both aninstitutional lack of options for substantive investiga-tion, and the degree to which powerful state and indus-try actors position themselves as the authoritative‘modest witnesses’ of rational scientific activity(Haraway 1997).

Finally, this case reveals that the source(s) of con-tamination matter in how effectively the DEP can bechallenged. Unlike cases in Woburn, Massachusetts(popularized in the book and film A Civil Action) orLove Canal, New York, the source(s) of chemical expo-sures are still in active production in Kettleman City.Furthermore, CWM was in the process of securingapproval to increase their scale of local operations.Cases examined by Auyero and Swistun (2009),Ottinger (2013), Harrison (2011), and Bell (2016), all

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

featured communities actively exposed to chemicalsfrom the ongoing operations of multinational fossilfuel, agricultural, and hazardous waste sectors. This isimportant, as the potential for communities, groups,or residents to contest the DEP is impacted by thescale, intensity of operations, and political power ofan emitter and the sector to which they are tied.Therefore in Figure 2, I add private industry as astand-alone sector that subaltern communities willnecessarily have to engage.

The type of monitoring, data production, and ana-lysis deemed actionable by the state are neither con-ducive to nor aligned with decades of methodologicaladvancement in the science of cumulative chemicalcontamination in ecosystems and human bodies. Itappears that state administrators within extant regu-latory regimes do not intend to produce actionabledata or public policy that attend to the chronic, syner-gistic, non-voluntary chemical exposures that the resi-dents of Kettleman City and the SJV are exposed to inutero and over the entire life course.10 Fluid institu-tional arrangements consistently protect and benefitelite, white corporate interests over the public healthof people of color and low-income communities.These arrangements, paired with powerful epistemol-ogies of environmental health ignorance, render theadverse effects and those harmed, not only concep-tually invisible (Mills 2007), but also scientifically andlegally invisible. As Rachel Carson observed in the1950s and 1960s in her research on pesticides, thehealth experiences of agricultural workers are notanecdotal; they are actually among the most accuratesources of knowledge we have on the health effectsof these chemicals (Nash 2006).11

The contested landscape of data production, ana-lysis, and interpretation in Kettleman City is shapedby structural environmental racism. Based on Feagin(2013), Bracey (2016), Delgado and Stefancic (2012),and Mills (1997, 2007), this analysis conceptualizesrace as a system grounded in colonialism that actsas a means for favored groups exploit people andplaces defined as subaltern. Following Bracey(2016), Pulido (2015, 2016) and Pulido, Kohl, andCotton (2016), I show that our theoretical optionsexpand with critical engagement on what race is,whom it benefits, and why it continues to signifi-cantly undermine the health and wellbeing of peo-ple of color, and many non-elite whites (Feagin2013, 2014). A critical race approach enables anexamination of the Kettleman City case thataccounts for the systemic, historic, and acceleratingdeployment of racism. Racism facilitates the justifi-cation of the status quo and protects industry fromthreats to capital accumulation, such as conclusivescientific findings on environmental health hazards.Additionally, such an approach helps explain whymore favored populations and places might be

simultaneously better positioned to qualify forlegal, scientific, or regulatory recourse, or alterna-tively present a social contradiction so great thatthe state concedes (what Bell et al. 1984 concep-tualize as a ‘contradicting closing case’). Thus, totheorize the multiple failures of institutionalrecourse for residents of Kettleman City, I joinBrown’s (2007/2013) model of contested illnesswith critical race perspectives from Bell (2004),Crenshaw (1989, 1991), Delgado and Stefancic(2012), and Mills (1997, 2007).

Conclusion

I present a case study of a contested birth defect clusterin Kettleman City to examine structural challenges thiscommunity faces due to intersecting axes of margin-alization. Rather than focusing on the discovery experi-ence or strategic decision-making of residents, I ask howinstitutional logics and decision-makers systematicallydenied protection and recourse to this community(Bullard and Wright 2012; Mascarenhas 2012). Drawingon critical race and intersectional perspectives, this casereveals that paths of institutional recourse were structu-rally foreclosed for this population and place due toracialized systems of power.

The arguments in this paper contribute to a grow-ing body of critical EJ scholarship aimed at explicitlycharacterizing the ideological and material aspects ofenvironmental racism (Murphy 2017; Pellow 2000,2007; Pulido 1996a, 2000, 2015, 2016; Pulido, Kohl,and Cotton 2016). Critical race definitions of raceand racism address the paradoxical fluidity and per-manence of racial and spatial inequality, and in doingso render visible the ways in which exposure struc-tures remain stable over time in subaltern populationsand space. From the colonial Spanish empire to pre-sent, the predominantly non-white residents of theSJV live and labor under structural conditions in ser-vice of racial capitalism. Rendering the health andenvironmental impacts of hazardous exposure in thisplace institutionally imperceptible (Murphy 2006)becomes imperative to the production logics govern-ing labor and land use in the SJV (Harrison 2006,2011). This is the logic behind the construction andmaintenance of the SJV as a subaltern space. Toemploy and contaminate favored bodies would betoo great a contradiction, a clear violation of thesocial contact characterized by Mills (1997).Scholarship in environmental sociology, by drawingon critical race and intersectional approaches, canmore explicitly analyze how activities of state agen-cies, academic institutions, industry, and the mediaare qualitatively and quantitatively distinct in subal-tern versus favored populations and space (Bullard1990; Bullard and Wright 2012; Pellow 2000; Pulido2015).

10 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

Notes

1. Pellow (2000) writes that while environmental racismis an example of an environmental injustice, the termenvironmental inequality encompasses structuraldynamics that include, ‘the unequal distribution ofpower and resources in a society’ (582).

2. From 2009 to 2013, I worked in communications anddevelopment at the Center on Race, Poverty & theEnvironment in California, a nonprofit organizationthat has provided legal and organizing support togroups in Kettleman City and throughout the SanJoaquin Valley since 1992. As such, I was present incourtrooms, community and state-organized meet-ings, rallies, and press conferences pertaining to theKettleman City birth defect cluster and infant mortal-ities. For the purposes of this article, I focus the stateresponse to this community and NGO identifiedcluster.

3. Critical political economic perspectives within envir-onmental sociology align with some aspects of criti-cal race orientations towards the state undercapitalism, specifically the characterization of thestate as an extension of elite class interests andnearly constant struggle (Bracey 2014; Downey2015; Faber 2008; Foster, Clark, and York 2011;Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2004; Pellow 2000;Schnaiberg 1980). While many scholars conceptualizethe exploitation of the land and bodies of people ofcolor as logical within capitalist systems, this fieldtypically does not offer explicit definitions of race,or critically interrogate the centrality of white supre-macy as a material and ideological necessity within aracial capitalist system (Feagin and Ducey 2017;Pulido 2015; Robinson 1983/2000).

4. The California aqueduct runs adjacent to SJV com-munities like Kettleman City, bringing clean water toresidents of Southern California, currently inaccessi-ble to residents of Kettleman City.

5. Class I hazardous waste facilities are permitted totake dangerous wastes and banned toxic substancessuch as: pesticides, dry-cleaning chemicals, oilwastes, and solvents, among others. (Cal EPA 2006).

6. Personal correspondence.7. See Minnesota Department of Health ongoing bio-

monitoring and New Hampshire Department ofPublic Health biomonitoring in response to growingcommunity outcry regarding drinking water contam-ination from per- and poly-fluorinated compounds.

8. Certainly this bifurcation of favored and subalternpopulations and space is a generalization, and thereis often overlap between these ongoing, historicallyinformed, processes (Pellow 2000). I do not wish todiscount the exploitation of land and labor in frontlinezones of extraction and waste disposal with significantwhite populations. Furthermore, I do not argue thatone group or region’s suffering is more or less con-cerning than another’s, absolutely no person or childshould be harmed in the interest of profit. However, Ido argue that it is necessary to analyze how bodilyharm and appeals for institutional recourse are shapedby race, class, and regional subject positions (of othersignificant variables not attended to here) (Bracey2016; Brown 2007/2013; Bullard 1990; 1994; Bullardand Wright 2009, 2012; Epstein 1996; Farrell 2012;Harrison 2011; Klawiter 1999; Morello-Frosch, Pastor,

and Sadd 2001; Morello-Frosch et al. 2002; Morello-Frosch and Jesdale 2006; Murphy 2006; Pulido 1996a;2000; 2015; 2016).

9. In one of many administrative legal efforts to denythe expansion of the Kettleman Hills Facility, thecommunity health survey was completely dismissedas evidence by one SJV judge.

10. SJV EJ groups and advocates have partnered directlywith public health academics including JonathanLondon, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Manuel Pastor, andJim Saha, among others, to devise cumulative impactexposure methods and indices that Cal/EPA and USEPA have gradually and selectively adopted.

11. The Kettleman City birth defect cluster joins alegacy of community-identified birth defect andcancer clusters without identifiable environmentalcauses in low-income Latino California communities.Two community-identified birth defect clusterswere found in the only other California communitiesthat contain Class I hazardous waste facilities:Buttonwillow and McFarland (Natural ResourcesDefense Council 2011).

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Phil Brown, Christopher Chambers,MiguelMontalva, Neenah Estrella-Luna, ElisabethWilder, TracyPerkins, Michael Murphy, Manuel Vallee, the Social ScienceEnvironmental Health Research Institute at NortheasternUniversity, and three anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding

This research was supported by a US National ScienceFoundation training program grant [SES-1260828].

Notes on contributor

Lauren Richter is a PhD candidate in sociology atNortheastern University. Her research focuses on environ-mental sociology, environmental justice, environmentalhealth, and critical race theory. She is a 2017–2018 SwitzerEnvironmental Fellow.

ORCIDLauren Richter http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3686-6060

References

Alexander, M. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration inthe Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press.

American Lung Association. 2017. “State of the Air 2017.”http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-2017.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

Arax, M., and R. Wartzman. 2003. The King of California: J.G.Boswell and the Making of a Secret American Empire. NewYork: Public Affairs.

Auyero, J., and D. Swistun. 2008. “The Social Production ofToxic Uncertainty.” American Sociological Review 73 (3):357–379. doi:10.1177/000312240807300301.

Auyero, J., and D. A. Swistun. 2009. Flammable:Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Balazs, C., R. Morello-Frosch, A. Hubbard, and I. Ray. 2011.“Social Disparities in Nitrate-Contaminated DrinkingWater in California’s San Joaquin Valley.” EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives 119 (9): 1272–1278. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002878.

Bell, D. 1993. Faces at the Bottom of the Well: ThePermanence of Racism. New York: Basic Books.

Bell, D. 2004. Silent Covenants: Brown V. Board of Educationand the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bell, D., A. Freeman, M. Fordham, and S. Willhelm. 1984.“Hurdle Too High: Class-Based Roadblocks to RacialRemediation.” Buffalo Law Review 33 (1): 1–34.

Bell, D. A. 1980. “Brown V. Board of Education and theInterest-Convergence Dilemma.” Harvard Law Review 93:518–533. doi:10.2307/1340546.

Bell, S. E. 2016. Fighting King Coal: The Challenges toMicromobilization in Central Appalachia. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Bell, S. E., and R. York. 2010. “Community Economic Identity:The Coal Industry and Ideology Construction in WestVirginia.” Rural Sociology 75 (1): 111–143. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.00004.x.

Benjamin, R. 2016. “Innovating Inequity: If Race Is aTechnology, Postracialism Is the Genius Bar.” Ethnic andRacial Studies 39 (13): 2227–2234. doi:10.1080/01419870.2016.1202423.

Bonilla-Silva, E. 2010. Racism without Racists: Color-BlindRacism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in theUnited States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bracey, G. E. 2014. “Toward a Critical Race Theory of State.”Critical Sociology 41 (3): 553–572. doi:10.1177/0896920513504600.

Bracey, G. E. 2016. “Black Movements Need Black Theorizing:Exposing Implicit Whiteness in Political Process Theory.”Sociological Focus 49 (1): 11–27. doi:10.1080/00380237.2015.1067569.

Brody, J. G., A. Aschengrau, W. McKelvey, C. H. Swartz, T.Kennedy, and R. A. Rudel. 2006. “Breast Cancer Risk andDrinking Water Contaminated by Wastewater: A CaseControl Study.” Environmental Health 5 (1): 28.doi:10.1186/1476-069X-5-28.

Brown, P. 2007/2013. Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and theEnvironmental Health Movement. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Brown, P., and E. J. Mikkelsen. 1990. No Safe Place: ToxicWaste. Leukemia, and Community Action, 126. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Bullard, R. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, andEnvironmental Quality. Boulder: Westview Press.

Bullard, R. D. 1994. “Overcoming Racism in EnvironmentalDecision-Making.” Environment: Science and Policy forSustainable Development 36 (4): 10–44.

Bullard, R. D., and B. Wright. 2009. Race, Place, andEnvironmental Justice after Hurricane Katrina: Struggles toReclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the GulfCoast. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bullard, R. D., and B. Wright. 2012. The Wrong Complexion forProtection: How the Government Response to DisasterEndangers African American Communities. New York:NYU Press.

Bullard, R. D., P. Mohai, R. Saha, and B. Wright. 2007. ToxicWastes and Race at Twenty 1987–2007.Cleveland, OH:United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries.

California Department of Public Health. 2010. “Investigationof Birth Defects and Community Exposures in KettlemanCity, CA.” http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Documents/KettlemanCityReportNovv1English.pdf

California Department of Public Health, California BirthDefects Monitoring Program. 2011. Birth Defects inKettleman City and Surrounding Areas: 2009-2011 Update.Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health.

Cal EPA and California Department of Public Health. 2011.“Investigation of Birth Defects, Kettleman City, CA.” InPresentation for Department of Pesticide Regulation.Presentation Available Online. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaEnvironmental Protection Agency and CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health.

Cal EPA,DTSC. 2006. “Waste Class Definitions.” http://ccelearn.csus.edu/wasteclass/glossary/glossary.html

Cal EPA,DTSC. 2016. Title VI Settlement Agreement withGreenaction for Health and Environmental Justice and ElPueblo Para El Aire Y Agua Limpia. Sacramento, CA:California Environmental Protection Agency.

Carrera, J. S. 2014. “Sanitation and Social Power in theUnited States.” Doctoral Dissertation, University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment. 2011. “The GreenPaper: A Vision for Environmentally and EconomicallySustainable Development.” http://www.crpe-ej.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Green-Paper.pdf

Checker, M. 2007. “But I Know It’s True”: Environmental RiskAssessment, Justice, and Anthropology.” HumanOrganization 66 (2): 112–124. doi:10.17730/humo.66.2.1582262175731728.

Coates, T., 2017. “The First White President.” The Atlantic,October.

Colborn, T., D. Dumanoski, and J. P. Myers. 1996. Our StolenFuture: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence andSurvival?–A Scientific Detective Story. New York: Plume.

Cole, L. 1995. “Environmental Justice and the Three GreatMyths of White Americana.” Hastings West-NorthwestJournal of Environmental Law & Policy 3: 449.

Cole, L., and S. S. Bowyer. 1991. “Pesticides and the Poor inCalifornia.” Race, Poverty & the Environment 2 (1): 1–18.

Cole, L. W., and S. R. Foster. 2001. From the Ground Up:Environmental Racism and the Rise of the EnvironmentalJustice Movement. New York: NYU Press.

Collins, P. H. 1991/2002. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. NewYork: Routledge.

Collins, P. H. 2015. “Intersectionality’s DefinitionalDilemmas.” Annual Review of Sociology 41: 1–20.doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142.

Corburn, J. 2005. Street Science: Community Knowledge andEnvironmental Health Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Corwin, M. 1991. “Unusual Allies Fight Waste Incinerator.” TheLos Angeles Times. Accessed June 20 2017. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-24/news/mn-2788_1_chemical-waste

Crenshaw, K. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Raceand Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of AntidiscriminationDoctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” TheUniversity of Chicago Legal Forum 1 (8): 139–167.

12 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

Crenshaw, K. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality,Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.”Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039.

Delgado, R., and J. Stefancic. 2012. Critical Race Theory: AnIntroduction. New York: NYU.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2016. “ChemicalWaste Management Inc. – Kettleman Hills Facility.Summary of Violations.” http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/CWMI_Kettleman.cfm

Downey, L. 2015. Inequality, Democracy, and theEnvironment. New York: NYU Press.

Edelstein, M. R. 1988. Contaminated Communities: The Socialand Psychological Impacts of Esidential Toxic Exposure.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, S. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and thePolitics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Erikson, K. T. 1976. Everything in Its Path. New York: Simonand Schuster.

Faber, D. 2008. Capitalizing on Environmental Injustice: ThePolluter-Industrial Complex in the Age of Globalization.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Fagin, D. 2013. Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation.New York: Bantam.

Farrell, C. 2012. “A Just Transition: Lessons Learned from theEnvironmental Justice Movement.” Duke FL & SocialChange 4: 45.

Feagin, J., and S. Elias. 2013. “Rethinking Racial FormationTheory: A Systemic Racism Critique.” Ethnic and RacialStudies 36 (6): 931–960. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.669839.

Feagin, J. R. 2013. The White Racial Frame: Centuries of RacialFraming and Counter-Framing. New York: Routledge.

Feagin, J. R. 2014. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, andFuture Reparations. New York: Routledge.

Feagin, J. R., and K. Ducey. 2017. Elite White Men Ruling:Who, What, When, Where, and How. New York: Taylor &Francis.

Foster, J. B., B. Clark, and R. York. 2011. The Ecological Rift:Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York: Monthly ReviewPress.

Ganz, M. 2000. “Resources and Resourcefulness: StrategicCapacity in the Unionization of California Agriculture,1959-1966.” American Journal of Sociology 105: 1003–1062. doi:10.1086/210398.

Ganz, M. 2009. Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership,Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm WorkerMovement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

General Accounting Office. 1983. “Siting of Hazardous WasteLandfills and Their Correlation with Racial and EconomicStatus of Surrounding Communities.” United StatesGeneral Accounting Office. http://archive.gao.gov/d48t13/121648.pdf

Gibbs, L. 2002. “Citizen Activism for Environmental Health:The Growth of a Powerful New Grassroots HealthMovement.” The Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 584 (1): 97–109. doi:10.1177/000271620258400107.

Gilmore, R. W. 2008. “Forgotten Places and the Seeds ofGrassroots Planning.” In Engaging Contradictions: Theory,Politics, and Methods of Activist Scholarship, edited ByCharles Hale, 31–61. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Gould, K. A., D. N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2004.“Interrogating the Treadmill of Production EverythingYou Wanted to Know about the Treadmill but Were

Afraid to Ask.” Organization & Environment 17 (3): 296–316. doi:10.1177/1086026604268747.

Hall, J., V. Brajer, and F. Lurmann. 2008. The Benefits ofMeeting Federal Clean Air Standards in the South Coastand San Joaquin Valley Air Basins. Berkeley: CaliforniaState University.

Haney-López, I. 1997. White by Law: The Legal Constructionof Race. New York: NYU Press.

Haney-López, I. 2015. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded RacialAppeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the MiddleClass. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haraway, D. J. 1997. Modest− Witness@ Second− Millennium.FemaleMan− Meets− OncoMouse: Feminism andTechnoscience. New York: Routledge.

Harrison, J. L. 2006. “‘Accidents’ and Invisibilities: ScaledDiscourse and the Naturalization of Regulatory Neglectin California’s Pesticide Drift Conflict.” Political Geography25 (5): 506–529. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.003.

Harrison, J. L. 2011. Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit ofEnvironmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Harrison, J. L. 2016. “Bureaucrats’ Tacit Understandings andSocial Movement Policy Implementation: Unpacking theDeviation of Agency Environmental Justice Programsfrom EJ Movement Priorities.” Social Problems 63 (4):534–553. doi:10.1093/socpro/spw024.

Huang, G., and J. K London. 2012. “CumulativeEnvironmental Vulnerability and Environmental Justicein California’s San Joaquin Valley.” International Journalof Environmental Research and Public Health 9 (5): 1593–1608. doi:10.3390/ijerph9051593.

Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental ResearchCoordinating Committee. 2013. Breast Cancer and theEnvironment: Prioritizing Prevention. Washington, DC:Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental ResearchCoordinating Committee.

Klawiter, M. 1999. “Racing for the Cure, Walking Women,and Toxic Touring: Mapping Cultures of Action within theBay Area Terrain of Breast Cancer.” Social Problems 46:104–126. doi:10.2307/3097164.

Kushner, S., and H. N. Corona. 1975. Long Road to Delano.Vol. 183. New York: International.

Landrigan, P., R. Fuller, N. Acosta, O. Adeyi, R. Arnold, N.Basu, A. B. Balde, R. Bertollini, S. Bose-O'Reilly, J. I.Boufford, et al. 2017. “The Lancet Commission onPollution and Health.” The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0.

Leslie, J. 2010. “What’s Killing the Babies of Kettleman City?”Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/kettleman-city-toxic-birth-defect-cluster/

Levine, A. G. 1982. Love Canal: Science, Politics, and People.Lexington, MA: Heath.

Liévanos, R. S. 2012. “Certainty, Fairness, and Balance: StateResonance and Environmental Justice PolicyImplementation1.” Sociological Forum 27 (2): 481–503.Blackwell. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01327.x.

Lipsitz, G. 2006. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: HowWhite People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

London, J., G. Huang, and T. Zagofsky. 2011. Land of Risk/Land of Opportunity: Cumulative EnvironmentalVulnerability in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Davis, CA:UC Davis Center for Regional Change.

London, J. K., J. Sze, and R. S. Liévanos. 2008. “Problems, Promise,Progress, and Perils: Critical Reflections on EnvironmentalJustice Policy Implementation in California.” UCLA Journal ofEnvironmental Law and Policy 26: 255.

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

Madley, B. 2016. An American Genocide: The United Statesand the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846–1873. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mascarenhas, M. 2007. “Where the Waters Divide: FirstNations, Tainted Water and Environmental Justice inCanada.” Local Environment 12 (6): 565–577. doi:10.1080/13549830701657265.

Mascarenhas, M. 2012. Where The Waters Divide:Neoliberalism, White Privilege, and Environmental Racismin Canada. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2010. “Anti-Reflexivity theAmerican Conservative Movement’s Success inUndermining Climate Science and Policy.” Theory,Culture & Society 27 (2–3): 100–133. doi:10.1177/0263276409356001.

McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2011. “Cool Dudes: TheDenial of Climate Change among Conservative WhiteMales in the United States.” Global Environmental Change21 (4): 1163–1172. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003.

Medina, J. 2014. “With Dry Taps and Toilets, CaliforniaDrought Turns Desparate.” The New York Times, October2. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/us/california-drought-tulare-county.html?_r=0

Mills, C. 1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Mills, C. 2007. “White Ignorance.” In Race and Epistemologiesof Ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan and NancyTuana, 11–38. Albany: State University of New York.

Mohai, P., and R. Saha. 2007. “Racial Inequality in theDistribution of Hazardous Waste: A National-LevelReassessment.” Social Problems 54 (3): 343–370.doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.343.

Morello-Frosch, R., and B. M. Jesdale. 2006. “Separate andUnequal: Residential Segregation and Estimated CancerRisks Associated with Ambient Air Toxics in USMetropolitan Areas.” Environmental Health Perspectives114 (3): 386–393. doi:10.1289/ehp.8500.

Morello-Frosch, R., M. Pastor Jr., C. Porras, and J. Sadd. 2002.“Environmental Justice and Regional Inequality inSouthern California: Implications for Future Research.”Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Suppl 2): 149–154. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110s2149.

Morello-Frosch, R., M. Pastor, and J. Sadd. 2001.“Environmental Justice and Southern California’s“Riskscape” the Distribution of Air Toxics Exposuresand Health Risks among Diverse Communities.” UrbanAffairs Review 36 (4): 551–578. doi:10.1177/10780870122184993.

Murphy, M. 2006. Sick Building Syndrome and the Politics ofUncertainty: Environmental Politics, Technoscience andWomen Workers. Durham, NC: Duke University.

Murphy, M. 2017. “Whiteness in the Web of Life: Race,Environment and Settler Colonialism in Rhode Island.”Doctoral Dissertation, Brown University.

Nash, L. L. 2006. Inescapable Ecologies: A History ofEnvironment, Disease, and Knowledge. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2011. “Disease Clusters:Spotlight on the Need to Protect People from ToxicChemicals.” https://www.nrdc.org/resources/disease-clusters-spotlight-need-protect-people-toxic-chemicals

Olson, V. A. 2010. “The Ecobiopolitics of Space Biomedicine.”Medical Anthropology 29 (2): 170–193. doi:10.1080/01459741003715409.

Orfalea, G. 2014. Journey to the Sun: Junípero Serra’s Dream andthe Founding of California. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ottinger, G. 2013. Refining Expertise: How ResponsibleEngineers Subvert Environmental Justice Challenges.Cambridge, MA: NYU Press.

Ottinger, G., and B. R. Cohen, eds. 2011. Technoscience andEnvironmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a GrassrootsMovement. New York: MIT Press.

Pannu, C. 2012. “Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Studyfrom California’s Central Valley.” California Law Review100(1): 223–268.

Park, L. S., and D. N. Pellow. 2011. The Slums of Aspen:Immigrants Vs. The Environment in America’s Eden. NewYork: NYU.

Pellow, D. N. 2000. “Environmental Inequality Formationtoward a Theory of Environmental Injustice.” AmericanBehavioral Scientist 43 (4): 581–601.

Pellow, D. N. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: TransnationalMovements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Pellow, D. N. 2010. “The Global Waste Trade andEnvironmental Justice Struggles.” In Handbook on Tradeand the Environment,edited by Kevin Gallagher, 225–235.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Pellow, D. N., and H. N. Brehm. 2013. “An EnvironmentalSociology for the Twenty-First Century.” Annual Review ofSociology 39: 229–250. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145558.

Perkins, T. 2015. “From Protest to Policy: The PoliticalEvolution of California Environmental Justice Activism,1980s–2010s.” Doctoral Dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz.

Perkins, T. E. 2012. “Women’s Pathways into Activism:Rethinking the Women’s Environmental Justice Narrativein California’s San Joaquin Valley.” Organization &Environment 25 (1): 76–94. doi:10.1177/1086026612445390.

powell, J. A. 2012. Racing to Justice: Transforming OurConceptions of Self and Other to Build an InclusiveSociety. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

powell, J. A., and C. Watt. 2010. “Corporate Prerogative,Race, and Identity under the Fourteenth Amendment.”Cardozo L Reviews 32: 885.

Presidents’s Cancer Panel. 2008-2009. ReducingEnvironmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now.President’s Cancer Panel. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.

Pulido, L. 1996a. “A Critical Review of the Methodology ofEnvironmental Racism Research.” Antipode 28 (2): 142–159. doi:10.1111/anti.1996.28.issue-2.

Pulido, L. 1996b. Environmentalism and Economic Justice:Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest. Tucson:University of Arizona Press.

Pulido, L. 2000. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: WhitePrivilege and Urban Development in Southern California.”Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 (1):12–40. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00182.

Pulido, L. 2015. “Geographies of Race and Ethnicity 1 WhiteSupremacy vs. White Privilege in Environmental RacismResearch.” Progress in Human Geography 39 (6): 809–817.doi:10.1177/0309132514563008.

Pulido, L. 2016. “Geographies of Race and Ethnicity II:Environmental Racism, Racial Capitalism and State-Sanctioned Violence.” Progress in Human Geography 41 (4):524–533.

Pulido, L., E. Kohl, and N. M. Cotton. 2016. “State Regulationand Environmental Justice: The Need for StrategyReassessment.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 27 (2): 12–31. doi:10.1080/10455752.2016.1146782.

14 L. RICHTER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017

Reisner, M. 1993. Cadillac Desert: The American West and ItsDisappearing Water. New York: Penguin.

Robinson, C. 1983/2000. Black Marxism: The Making of theBlack Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press.

Rudel, R. A., K. R. Attfield, J. N. Schifano, and J. G. Brody.2007. “Chemicals Causing Mammary Gland Tumors inAnimals Signal New Directions for Epidemiology,Chemicals Testing, and Risk Assessment for BreastCancer Prevention.” Cancer 109 (S12): 2635–2666.doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0142.

Saxton, D. I. 2015. “Strawberry Fields as Extreme Environments:The Ecobiopolitics of Farmworker Health.” MedicalAnthropology 34 (2): 166–183. doi:10.1080/01459740.2014.959167.

Scammell, M., and G. Howard 2015. “Is A Health Study Right forYour Community? A Guide for Making Informed Decisions.”Boston University Superfund Research Program. https://www.bu.edu/sph/research/research-landing-page/superfund-research-program-at-boston-university/research-cores/community-engagement-core/health-studies-guide/

Schnaiberg, A. 1980. “Environment: From Surplus toScarcity.” In Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity.Cambridge: Oxford University.

Srebotnjak, T., and M. Rotkin-Ellman 2014. “Drilling inCalifornia: Who’s at Risk?” Natural Resources DefenseCouncil. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/california-fracking-risks-report.pdf

UCC. 1987. “Commission for Racial Justice.” In Toxic Wastesand Race in the United States: A National Report on theRacial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communitieswith Hazardous Waste Sites. New York: United Church ofChrist Commission for Racial Justice.

US Congress. 2005. “Energy Policy Act of 2005.” Public Law109 (58): 42.

Werner, A. 2015. “Corporations are (White) People: HowCorporate Privilege Reifies Whiteness as Property.”Harvard Journal Racial & Ethnic Just 31: 129.

White, R. 1991. It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: ANew History of the American West. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

Wing, S. 1994. “Limits of Epidemiology.” Medicine and GlobalSurvival. 1 (2): 74–86.

World Health Organization. 2016. “WHO Releases CountryEstimates on Air Pollution Exposure and Health Impact.”http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/air-pollution-estimates/en/

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

24.6

1.70

.185

] at

12:

42 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2017