Plaintiff
Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, Inc., and others
Defendant
King and Queen County Board of Supervisors consisting of five members: R. A.Kay, Jr., R. H. Bourne, J. R. Walton, R. F. Alsop, and W. L. Hickman
Plaintiff's Claim
That placing a landfill in a predominantly African American area results in aracially disproportionate impact and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Sa'ad El-Amin
Chief Defense Lawyer
John Granville Douglass
Judge
Richard L. Williams (writing for the court)
Place
Richmond, Virginia
Date of Decision
21 June 1991
Decision
Ruled in favor of the Virginia county and allowed the project to proceed by finding that the racially disproportionate impact was not intentional.
Significance
The district court established distinct standards for individuals and organizations legally challenging sanitary landfill siting decisions by local governments. To challenge such decisions on constitutional grounds such as racial discrimination the petitioner must establish that placement of a landfill in apredominately African American area resulted from intentional discriminationin violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling provided a useful guideline for local and state governments across the nation in making difficultdecisions under public scrutiny.
Concerns over the placement of public facilities in neighborhoods and communities grew dramatically through the 1970s and 1980s following emergence of theU.S. environmental movement in the 1960s. Siting decisions by state and local governments were often challenged on constitutional grounds. Normally, opponents to the facilities claimed violations of the equal protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a challenge against proposed low income housing in a Chicago suburb, the U.S. Supreme Court in ArlingtonHeights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977) identified a number of factors to be considered in determining whether an action was truly unconstitutionally discriminatory. Building on a previous ruling in Washington v. Davis (1976), the first question was: what actual effect does the official action pose? Second, what was the historical background of the decision? Third, what was the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision? Fourth, was the action a departure from normal procedures? Fifth, was the action a departure from normal criteria? And lastly, what was the administrative history of the decision? The Davis and Arlington Heights decisions dismayed civil rights groups throughout the nation. The requirement toprove discriminatory intent behind decisions was considerably tougher than simply demonstrating the disproportionate effects of government actions on minority populations.
The King and Queen Landfill Dilemma
In 1986, King Land Corporation established a private landfill on a 120-acre site in King and Queen County, Virginia. With no existing county zoning ordinance at that time regarding landfill placement, King Land did not need to obtain county approval. The King Land landfill became an environmental disaster from the beginning as dumping began without the necessary geotechnical tests performed beforehand. Later, tests showed that incinerator ash had been buriedin ground water areas and no clay soil was present to prohibit ground waterpollution.
An attorney hired by the county board of supervisors to legally challenge theKing Land operation advised the board to devise a zoning ordinance. The county soon implemented an ordinance in August of 1986 and then obtained a courtinjunction preventing King Land from operating its landfill under its state-issued permit. King Land applied for a variance to the ordinance to resume useof the landfill but the county denied its application. Racial composition ofthe residential area surrounding the King Land landfill was predominantly white.
In 1987, Virginia issued new state regulations for solid waste disposal in landfills. The new regulations posed a significant financial problem for King and Queen County. Three existing county landfills had to be closed for not meeting the new environmental standards at a cost of almost two million dollars.The county could not afford to close the existing landfills and develop a new landfill that would comply with the new state regulations.
In an effort to solve its waste disposal problems, the county began negotiations with the Chesapeake Corporation to develop a shared landfill. As envisioned, Chesapeake would build the landfill, the county would operate it, and both could use it for waste disposal. Chesapeake soon found a 420 acre potentiallandfill site in what was known as the Piedmont Tract. The company hired anengineering company from Charlotte, North Carolina to conduct soil studies. Tests determined the site was suitable for landfill development.
In the summer of 1988 Chesapeake changed its mind and decided to expand an existing landfill to satisfy its own waste disposal needs. Several months later, in January of 1989, county supervisors met with Chesapeake to once again jointly pursue a property for a landfill site. Chesapeake identified at least two sites for possible landfill development: the Piedmont Tract again and an one other. At a regular county board of supervisors meeting in October of 1989, board members in a public session appointed a citizen's "liaison committee"to explore alternatives for the county's future waste disposal needs. At another public hearing the following month, the county planning commission proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding landfills which were accepted by the board. A few days later, still in November, Supervisor Robert Kay publicly announced the 420-acre Piedmont site was officially under consideration and recommended the county acquire an option to purchase it.
In December of 1989, in another public hearing, the county, with the assistance of its liaison committee, reaffirmed it could not afford to operate its own landfill. As a result, the county board adopted Kay's resolution to executea purchase option agreement with Chesapeake for the Piedmont site. The agreement was promptly signed. With those decisions made, the board published public notices in local newspapers for public hearings on the landfill issue. Letters and petitions in opposition to the Piedmont landfill option soon began arriving.
Community Mobilization
In January of 1990, citizens concerned about the proposed landfill met in theSecond Mt. Olive Baptist Church with three county supervisors and a city administrator. The citizens expressed concerns that the proposed landfill wouldreduce the quality of life of area residents by increasing noise, dust and odor. They were also worried the landfill would result in a decrease in the area's property values. Even Reverend Taylor of the church argued that it wouldinterfere with worship and social activities. Many believed major improvements in access roads would be necessary.
In February, the board held a public hearing and invited Browning-Ferris Industries to make a presentation about operation of regional landfills. Presentat the meeting were 225 citizens. Fifteen spoke in opposition to the proposal. In addition, the board was presented with a petition signed by 947 individuals opposing the regional landfill. After considering these comments, the board voted unanimously to authorize development of a landfill. In response, a Concerned Citizen's Steering Committee sent a letter to the county board of supervisors requesting that the board establish a Regional Landfill Citizen's Advisory Committee to assess other siting possibilities before signing any actual purchase contracts. Soon, a list of alternative sites to the Piedmont site was narrowed to one, the Mantapike Tract. The minority population of the area surrounding the Mantapike Tract was 85 percent African American.
Upon inspection of the Mantapike site, Browning-Ferris Industries reported tothe board that the site was environmentally unsuitable because of the slopeof the land and a stream running through it. With the site selection narrowedto the Piedmont tract, local citizens formed Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, Inc. (RISE), in May of 1990. RISE was a biracial group concerned over environmental protection issues. Race discrimination was not initially identified as a significant public issue by the group.
In July of 1990, the county approved a planning commission's recommendation that the Piedmont Tract be rezoned from agricultural production to an industrial area. In an August public hearing, the board passed a resolution to finally sign a lease for the Piedmont site with Browning-Ferris Industries who would operate the landfill. Though the population of King and Queen County was approximately 50 percent African American, 64 percent of those living within ahalf-mile radius of the proposed regional landfill site were African American. RISE filed a lawsuit in federal district court claiming the proposed sitingof the landfill was racially discriminatory violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In hearing the case, Judge Richard L. Williams applied the standard established in Arlington Heights to determine if the county's decision violatedthe Constitution. In order to assess the intent of the county in its decisions, Williams first evaluated the effect of the government action in this case. After weighing the statistics concerning landfills in King and Queen County, Williams concluded the historical placement of landfills in predominantly black communities provided "an important starting point" for determining whether official action was motivated by discriminatory intent. Williams found, indeed, that landfill placement in the county since 1969 posed a disproportionate impact on black residents. But what of the other factors, such as sequenceof events leading to the county decision and deviation from existing procedures for making zoning changes? Williams found that "the plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that satisfies the remainder of the discriminatory purpose equation set forth in Arlington Heights. Careful examination of theadministrative steps taken by the board of supervisors to negotiate the purchase of the Piedmont Tract and authorize its use as a landfill site reveals nothing unusual or suspicious." The frequent public hearings provided ample opportunity for citizen involvement. The record demonstrated to Williams that the county board's opposition to the King Land landfill and its approval of the newly proposed Piedmont landfill was not based on the racial composition ofthe respective neighborhoods in which the landfills were located. The key issue weighed by the county was the relative environmental suitability of the sites.
The record clearly indicated the board of supervisors had preferred the Piedmont tract because tests had found it environmentally suitable for landfill development. Establishment of a citizens advisory group and evaluating the suitability of the alternative site, recommended by the Concerned Citizens' Steering Committee, indicated that public comment was considered. The discussion with landfill contractor, Browning-Ferris Industries, to minimize the impact of the landfill on the Second Mt. Olive Church, and improving access roads showed that the board of supervisors had followed normal procedures.
Williams asserted that the Equal Protection Clause did not impose an affirmative duty to equalize the impact of official decisions on different racial groups. RISE had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the Arlington Heights' legal standard. Williams wrote, "official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. Such action violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only if it is intentionally discriminatory." The county could proceed with its plans.
Impact
Increasingly typical for the late twentieth century, a community organizationhad formed specifically to oppose a local governmental decision. The legal challenge against the proposed regional landfill failed to prove the placementin a predominately African American area was intentionally discriminatory inviolation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rulinghighlighted to other municipalities across the nation what they must do to withstand organized challenges to their decisions. Appropriate actions included open meetings and documenting how public input was considered in reaching decisions. Most importantly, a well defined process for decision making must be established and then strictly followed.
Related Cases
Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, Inc., and others
Defendant
King and Queen County Board of Supervisors consisting of five members: R. A.Kay, Jr., R. H. Bourne, J. R. Walton, R. F. Alsop, and W. L. Hickman
Plaintiff's Claim
That placing a landfill in a predominantly African American area results in aracially disproportionate impact and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Sa'ad El-Amin
Chief Defense Lawyer
John Granville Douglass
Judge
Richard L. Williams (writing for the court)
Place
Richmond, Virginia
Date of Decision
21 June 1991
Decision
Ruled in favor of the Virginia county and allowed the project to proceed by finding that the racially disproportionate impact was not intentional.
Significance
The district court established distinct standards for individuals and organizations legally challenging sanitary landfill siting decisions by local governments. To challenge such decisions on constitutional grounds such as racial discrimination the petitioner must establish that placement of a landfill in apredominately African American area resulted from intentional discriminationin violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling provided a useful guideline for local and state governments across the nation in making difficultdecisions under public scrutiny.
Concerns over the placement of public facilities in neighborhoods and communities grew dramatically through the 1970s and 1980s following emergence of theU.S. environmental movement in the 1960s. Siting decisions by state and local governments were often challenged on constitutional grounds. Normally, opponents to the facilities claimed violations of the equal protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a challenge against proposed low income housing in a Chicago suburb, the U.S. Supreme Court in ArlingtonHeights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977) identified a number of factors to be considered in determining whether an action was truly unconstitutionally discriminatory. Building on a previous ruling in Washington v. Davis (1976), the first question was: what actual effect does the official action pose? Second, what was the historical background of the decision? Third, what was the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision? Fourth, was the action a departure from normal procedures? Fifth, was the action a departure from normal criteria? And lastly, what was the administrative history of the decision? The Davis and Arlington Heights decisions dismayed civil rights groups throughout the nation. The requirement toprove discriminatory intent behind decisions was considerably tougher than simply demonstrating the disproportionate effects of government actions on minority populations.
The King and Queen Landfill Dilemma
In 1986, King Land Corporation established a private landfill on a 120-acre site in King and Queen County, Virginia. With no existing county zoning ordinance at that time regarding landfill placement, King Land did not need to obtain county approval. The King Land landfill became an environmental disaster from the beginning as dumping began without the necessary geotechnical tests performed beforehand. Later, tests showed that incinerator ash had been buriedin ground water areas and no clay soil was present to prohibit ground waterpollution.
An attorney hired by the county board of supervisors to legally challenge theKing Land operation advised the board to devise a zoning ordinance. The county soon implemented an ordinance in August of 1986 and then obtained a courtinjunction preventing King Land from operating its landfill under its state-issued permit. King Land applied for a variance to the ordinance to resume useof the landfill but the county denied its application. Racial composition ofthe residential area surrounding the King Land landfill was predominantly white.
In 1987, Virginia issued new state regulations for solid waste disposal in landfills. The new regulations posed a significant financial problem for King and Queen County. Three existing county landfills had to be closed for not meeting the new environmental standards at a cost of almost two million dollars.The county could not afford to close the existing landfills and develop a new landfill that would comply with the new state regulations.
In an effort to solve its waste disposal problems, the county began negotiations with the Chesapeake Corporation to develop a shared landfill. As envisioned, Chesapeake would build the landfill, the county would operate it, and both could use it for waste disposal. Chesapeake soon found a 420 acre potentiallandfill site in what was known as the Piedmont Tract. The company hired anengineering company from Charlotte, North Carolina to conduct soil studies. Tests determined the site was suitable for landfill development.
In the summer of 1988 Chesapeake changed its mind and decided to expand an existing landfill to satisfy its own waste disposal needs. Several months later, in January of 1989, county supervisors met with Chesapeake to once again jointly pursue a property for a landfill site. Chesapeake identified at least two sites for possible landfill development: the Piedmont Tract again and an one other. At a regular county board of supervisors meeting in October of 1989, board members in a public session appointed a citizen's "liaison committee"to explore alternatives for the county's future waste disposal needs. At another public hearing the following month, the county planning commission proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding landfills which were accepted by the board. A few days later, still in November, Supervisor Robert Kay publicly announced the 420-acre Piedmont site was officially under consideration and recommended the county acquire an option to purchase it.
In December of 1989, in another public hearing, the county, with the assistance of its liaison committee, reaffirmed it could not afford to operate its own landfill. As a result, the county board adopted Kay's resolution to executea purchase option agreement with Chesapeake for the Piedmont site. The agreement was promptly signed. With those decisions made, the board published public notices in local newspapers for public hearings on the landfill issue. Letters and petitions in opposition to the Piedmont landfill option soon began arriving.
Community Mobilization
In January of 1990, citizens concerned about the proposed landfill met in theSecond Mt. Olive Baptist Church with three county supervisors and a city administrator. The citizens expressed concerns that the proposed landfill wouldreduce the quality of life of area residents by increasing noise, dust and odor. They were also worried the landfill would result in a decrease in the area's property values. Even Reverend Taylor of the church argued that it wouldinterfere with worship and social activities. Many believed major improvements in access roads would be necessary.
In February, the board held a public hearing and invited Browning-Ferris Industries to make a presentation about operation of regional landfills. Presentat the meeting were 225 citizens. Fifteen spoke in opposition to the proposal. In addition, the board was presented with a petition signed by 947 individuals opposing the regional landfill. After considering these comments, the board voted unanimously to authorize development of a landfill. In response, a Concerned Citizen's Steering Committee sent a letter to the county board of supervisors requesting that the board establish a Regional Landfill Citizen's Advisory Committee to assess other siting possibilities before signing any actual purchase contracts. Soon, a list of alternative sites to the Piedmont site was narrowed to one, the Mantapike Tract. The minority population of the area surrounding the Mantapike Tract was 85 percent African American.
Upon inspection of the Mantapike site, Browning-Ferris Industries reported tothe board that the site was environmentally unsuitable because of the slopeof the land and a stream running through it. With the site selection narrowedto the Piedmont tract, local citizens formed Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, Inc. (RISE), in May of 1990. RISE was a biracial group concerned over environmental protection issues. Race discrimination was not initially identified as a significant public issue by the group.
In July of 1990, the county approved a planning commission's recommendation that the Piedmont Tract be rezoned from agricultural production to an industrial area. In an August public hearing, the board passed a resolution to finally sign a lease for the Piedmont site with Browning-Ferris Industries who would operate the landfill. Though the population of King and Queen County was approximately 50 percent African American, 64 percent of those living within ahalf-mile radius of the proposed regional landfill site were African American. RISE filed a lawsuit in federal district court claiming the proposed sitingof the landfill was racially discriminatory violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In hearing the case, Judge Richard L. Williams applied the standard established in Arlington Heights to determine if the county's decision violatedthe Constitution. In order to assess the intent of the county in its decisions, Williams first evaluated the effect of the government action in this case. After weighing the statistics concerning landfills in King and Queen County, Williams concluded the historical placement of landfills in predominantly black communities provided "an important starting point" for determining whether official action was motivated by discriminatory intent. Williams found, indeed, that landfill placement in the county since 1969 posed a disproportionate impact on black residents. But what of the other factors, such as sequenceof events leading to the county decision and deviation from existing procedures for making zoning changes? Williams found that "the plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that satisfies the remainder of the discriminatory purpose equation set forth in Arlington Heights. Careful examination of theadministrative steps taken by the board of supervisors to negotiate the purchase of the Piedmont Tract and authorize its use as a landfill site reveals nothing unusual or suspicious." The frequent public hearings provided ample opportunity for citizen involvement. The record demonstrated to Williams that the county board's opposition to the King Land landfill and its approval of the newly proposed Piedmont landfill was not based on the racial composition ofthe respective neighborhoods in which the landfills were located. The key issue weighed by the county was the relative environmental suitability of the sites.
The record clearly indicated the board of supervisors had preferred the Piedmont tract because tests had found it environmentally suitable for landfill development. Establishment of a citizens advisory group and evaluating the suitability of the alternative site, recommended by the Concerned Citizens' Steering Committee, indicated that public comment was considered. The discussion with landfill contractor, Browning-Ferris Industries, to minimize the impact of the landfill on the Second Mt. Olive Church, and improving access roads showed that the board of supervisors had followed normal procedures.
Williams asserted that the Equal Protection Clause did not impose an affirmative duty to equalize the impact of official decisions on different racial groups. RISE had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the Arlington Heights' legal standard. Williams wrote, "official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. Such action violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only if it is intentionally discriminatory." The county could proceed with its plans.
Impact
Increasingly typical for the late twentieth century, a community organizationhad formed specifically to oppose a local governmental decision. The legal challenge against the proposed regional landfill failed to prove the placementin a predominately African American area was intentionally discriminatory inviolation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rulinghighlighted to other municipalities across the nation what they must do to withstand organized challenges to their decisions. Appropriate actions included open meetings and documenting how public input was considered in reaching decisions. Most importantly, a well defined process for decision making must be established and then strictly followed.
Related Cases
- Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
User Comments Add a comment…