The environmental justice movement seems to have come of age. The past two decades have seen increasing empirical evidence documenting racial disparities in sitinghazardous waste facilities and a nascent grass-roots movement bearing witness to the disproportionate effects of numerous environmental and health hazards in low-income communities of color.¹ Never have environmental justice claims been taken so seriously in environmental policymaking and adjudication than they have over the past five years. On a policy level, this seriousness is illustrated by two important events. The first is President Clinton's Executive Order on environmental justice, which directs all federal agencies to identify and address "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects" of its actions on minority and low-income populations, and calls for "early and ongoing public participation in permitting and siting decisions."² The second is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recent issuance of its Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits, which allows community groups to challenge state permit decisions (including permit modifications and renewals) upon showing that the permit will have a disparate impact on a minority community.³

Following closely behind the issuance of both of these policies are a number of decisions implementing them. Relying on President Clinton's Executive Order No. 12898, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has ruled that environmental decisionmakers have discretionary authority, under three federal environmental statutes, to implement the dictates of the Executive Order in the permitting process.⁴ Additionally, the first, and only, adjudication of a claim under EPA's Interim Guidance (the predecessor to its recently issued Draft Revised Guidance) was recently handed down in spite of intense opposition to the policy by state and local officials.⁵