11 wastewater treatment plants in LA County produce half a million tons of treated sewage sludge from human waste per year. Sludge is sent to a lnadfill in Kern County, the Westlake Facility, and some to Arizona
water pollution from sewage sludge
air pollution from sewage sludge and from trucks hauling the sludge to the farm - 55 trucks per day/20,000 per year at full capacity
LA County: "It's an important investment in long-term, reliable infrastructure that is critical to our ability to provide vital wastewater treatment services"
Westlake Farms: receiving less than they bargained for
Local farmers: it's a way to dispose of green waste (like wood chips)
Environmental groups and residents: concerned about air and water pollution, sued the project but settled after LA agreed to use clean-fuel trucks to haul waste. “It seemed like another deal where the Central Valley gets shafted by Southern California,” she said. “We send them good water to drink, and they send us back their poo. … I can’t say I’ll be really upset if they’re not operating at 100%.”
LA County: bought 14,500 acres of a farm for $27.4 million, used 2,500 acres to construct the $130 million composting plant, leased the remaining land back to the farm. The plant processes less than a 10th of what it was supposed to process, providing the farm with much less fertilizer than they expected.
Westlake Farms: sold the land to LA County, sued to have the sale undone after the plant produced much less fertilizer than expecte
Kings County and other nearby counties: banned application of biosolids (human waste) directly onto land, forcing LA to build a composting plant
“...Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty (Bullard et al., 2007) revealed that communities of colour and poor communities were still being used as dumping grounds for all kinds of toxic contaminants. The authors discovered evidence that the clustering of environmental hazards, in addition to single sources of pollution, presented significant threats to communities of colour. Furthermore, the research showed that polluting industries frequently singled out communities of colour in siting decisions, countering the “minority move-in hypothesis”: the claim that people of colour voluntarily move into contaminated communities rather than being targeted in situ by dirty industries.” (122)
“Bullard (1990) has highlighted the problem of “Black Love Canals” throughout the United States, where issues of environmental injustice are deeply connected with environ- mental racism. For example, Bullard highlights the case of toxic DDT water contamination in the African American community of Triana, Alabama. In 1978, in the midst of the national media attention focused on Love Canal, residents in Triana raised complaints over ill-health effects and contaminated fish and waterfowl. Lawsuits in Triana against the Olin Corporation continued throughout the 1980s. Although the case is noted within environ- mental justice histories (see Taylor, 2014), it is not widely recognized or commemorated.” (126)
“Underpinning the slow, structural violence (see Galtung, 1969; Davies, 2019) of unequal and unjust toxic exposures is the problem of “expendability” … Pellow (2018) proposes that indispensability is a key pillar of critical environmental justice studies (alongside intersectionality, scale, and state power). This idea builds on the work of critical race and ethnic studies scholar John Marquez (2014) on “racial expendability” to argue that, within a white-dominated society, people of colour are typically viewed as expendable.” (127)
“National and international media headlines followed the Flint water crisis story as it unfolded, but, after the initial shock, Flint faded from media attention. It shifted from being a spectacular disaster to a case of slow violence. This paral- lels the dynamics of public memory surrounding many toxic disasters, struggles, and legacies.” (128)
The author’s main argument is two-fold. Acute environmental disasters (e.g., Chernobyl, BP Horizon Spill, Hurricane Katrina) that garnered public attention leave behind legacies of increased support for environmental action and legislation, although the public attention span is often too short for lasting change. At the same time, these disasters have received a disproportionate amount of public attention compared to the many more slow-moving toxicity disasters that affect people in more systematic but often less visible ways. Examples of this disparity include the contrast between the 1984 Bhopal disaster coverage, and the persistent toxicity in the area in the time since then in the form of industrial waste and infrastructure that is not maintained. It is additionally important to note that the cases that don’t receive much attention often affect marginalized groups (by race, socioeconomics) disproportionately.