CONVENT, La. (CN) — An attorney representing a Louisiana parish in a dispute with "Cancer Alley" residents over the proposed expansion of a methanol plant told a Louisiana state judge Monday that although some people describe industrial development in poor Black neighborhoods as racist, the aim of the project in this case is to beat back cancer risk.
The logic, St. James Parish attorney Victor Franckiewicz Jr. said, is that since cancer risk appears greater in low-income Black households, boosting the economy in the area will help, adding that the St. James Parish Council that approved the expansion — possibly without any oversight — did so in part to bring jobs to poor, Black residents.
The St. James Parish Council approved the expansion of Koch’s methanol plant in July 2023.
The plant is in the primarily Black 5th District, which is in the heart of an area located 85 miles upriver from New Orleans that is known as "Cancer Alley," because of the heavy concentration of petrochemical plants there.
Cancer Alley runs along the Mississippi River on agricultural land that was once sugar plantations.
The proposed plant expansion includes a plan to build a pipeline through wetlands, which are not designated for industrial use.
Local ordinances prohibit building in wetlands, except in “unique” situations. The parish argued Koch Industries' pipeline construction is “unique.”
Local residents and Rise St. James, a grassroots organization aimed at fighting environmental injustice appealed the parish council’s permit. They and other opponents of the expansion say just two permanent jobs will be created, while toxic emissions will increase by 75%.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the Tulane Law Center and Center for Constitutional Rights.
In describing estimates for increases in emissions should the plant expand, Franckiewicz said any air pollution would be “very, very localized” since it would only amount to a “tiny, tiny fraction” of what is allowed under clean air laws.
Franckiewicz said also that neither Koch Industries nor the parish council that permitted the expansion were worried about emissions, in part because the plant is not in a residential area.
“Keep in mind, this is a land use permit. It is not an air quality review," Franckiewicz said, adding that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality “says emissions will be extremely small.”
“Even though there are emissions — that’s unquestionable — they aren’t large … because you can’t consider the impact of emissions on the public until you consider the duration and concentration of emissions," he continued.
To this, Judge Cody Martin of the 23rd District of Louisiana asked how emissions were being quantified.
Without answering with any particular quantification method or numbers, Franckiewicz said only that the emissions information came directly from Koch Industries and had been approved by the parish council.
“There’s a lot of distrust of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,” Franckiewicz said. “A lot of us wish that permitting was more thorough and standards were more stringent. But that doesn’t mean that LDEQ are a bunch of dummies.”
Without citing any particular data, Franckiewicz contended that emissions are always falling, not rising.
“Things are improving,” he said. “It’s not a falling off a cliff situation."
Monday’s hearing in response to the residents’ appeal was aimed at guidelines the parish council used when it approved the expansion and determining whether all necessary protocols were followed.
“What standard did the parish council use in making its decision?” Judge Martin asked Franckowicz.
Franckowicz replied that the parish council has discretion to approve or deny any old permit it likes. He added that the laws governing the council’s discretion are 100 years old.
“Keep in mind that the constitution says property owners can do what they want with their property,” Franckwicz said.
Judge Martin appeared unconvinced. He ordered all parties to reply in 30 days with a post-hearing memorandum in which they specifically list who decides whether industries are allowed to expand and under what standard. Additionally, Martin asked the parties to answer questions related to building pipelines in wetlands and whether a unique situation exists in this case.
Follow @https://twitter.com/sabrinacanfiel2
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Southern California bird smuggler sentenced to time served April 12, 2024 -
Practicing in prison April 12, 2024