Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Making Public Participation Meaningful: Assessing Twenty-Five Years of Community Strategies for Environmental Justice in Kettleman City, CA

Abstract

For the past 45 years, state and federal laws have required government agencies to include the public in the permitting process of facilities that could have a potentially negative impact on human health. Although public participation is a legal requirement, not all participation processes are created equally. Meaningful public participation is more than a legal requirement; it is a way for community residents to engage with government agencies to ensure a fair and inclusive process. While the requirement of public participation is in itself a change for communities once marginalized from permitting decisions, many residents are unable to participate meaningfully.

 

Here the rural and unincorporated community of Kettleman City, California, is used as a case study for examining community strategies for meaningful participation in permitting decisions. This study relies on planning and legal documents, participant observations of recent public meetings, and in-depth interviews with 22 community residents and government officials involved with public meetings. These meetings include the approval of Environmental Impact Reviews (EIR) for a hazardous landfill incinerator project in 1990 and an expansion permit for the same landfill in 2009. Community strategies opposing the public participation process began in 1988 and continued until the final permit was issued in 2014.

 

Participant observation at meetings and interviews with Kettleman City residents show opponents of the landfill projects have utilized a variety of strategies to support their meaningful inclusion in the two public meetings. While they used similar strategies with both meetings, some have proven to be more effective than others. While some strategies facilitated the project opponents’ efforts to be meaningfully included, others remain limited due to the legal requirements of public participation procedures, the lack of representation on appointed committees, and a lack of government accountability at the county level.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View