13,159 petitions

Update posted 35 minutes ago

Petition to Lakewood City Council

Protect Belmar Park in Lakewood, CO via Eminent Domain

Belmar Park in Lakewood, Colorado is an unprotected bird sanctuary.  The future quality of the park's bird and wildlife habitat is now uncertain due to a proposed 800,000+ square foot apartment building adjacent to the park's eastern boundary and riparian habitat.  This is more than 13 football fields. Over 230 bird species have been observed at Belmar Park according to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology 48 bird species of conservation concern (BCC) in or near Belmar Park are listed by the Avian Knowledge Network RAIL database. Birds are disappearing: 2.9 billion adult breeding birds lost in North America since 1970.   Half of Colorado's birds are in decline.  Habitat loss including due to development is the #1 driver of bird population declines. 2 out of 3 North American bird species face extinction. Healthy bird populations help keep away invasive insects like emerald ash borer which is closing in on Lakewood, CO. Benefits of acquiring this parking area via Eminent Domain: Preserving the parking lot is the only way to preserve the important existing buffer zone separating Belmar Park that may help mitigate wildlife impacts. Preserves many of the 66 large trees used by  bird species that would otherwise be cut down. Preserving as many of these trees as possible is the only way to preserve their canopy habitat because Lakewood does not require science-based basal area tree replacements as recommended to City Council by the Audubon Society. Preserves optimal public parking spaces for Belmar Park visitors that would otherwise be lost. Obviates the plan by the City of Lakewood to pave undeveloped public land in or near Belmar Park for parking.  The existing paved parking area has been used by Belmar Park visitors for decades and provides the closest access to the park.  The previous owner of 777 S Yarrow allowed the public to use the parking lot to access Belmar Park.   The new owner, Kairoi Residential, intends to construct an apartment building including the area previously available for public parking.  The proposed apartment building includes no affordable housing units or mixed use retail or commercial space. What Can I Do? 1) Please sign the petition. 2) Attend Lakewood City Council meetings and express your opinion(s) during the public comment segment.  This segment sometimes occurs later in the meeting. List of upcoming meetings including City Council meetings   3) Contact your Lakewood City Council representative and ask him/her to support the Eminent Domain action. Contact Info Page for Lakewood City Council  Look up your Ward number 4) If you have contacts with any environmental or wildlife organizations, encourage their attorneys to get involved and ask if they will inform their members about this petition. Questions?  Email me at:  I'll try to answer your email but can't always get it done. For further information or to receive email updates, visit  Why Eminent Domain? Lakewood City Council previously voted down a thoughtful package of mitigations at their October 23, 2023 meeting.  The package they rejected was even vetted by a supportive city council member who is also a practicing attorney in Colorado.  City council members did not offer to adopt any counter proposal or to amend the mitigation package.  The position of Lakewood City Council is that there is nothing they can do. Therefore, using Eminent Domain is a reasonable option because they are vested with that power and because they insist they cannot do anything else.  Even after an Eminent Domain action to preserve the parking lot, approximately 2/3 of the property at 777 S Yarrow St would still be owned by Kairoi Residential or subsequent owners or partners. It has also been reported that Kairoi has a right-of-first-refusal option on the property across the street at 777 S Wadsworth.  How to Avoid Habitat Impacts: The US Fish and Wildlife Service advises: “The best way to avoid habitat impacts is to avoid placing development in or near important bird habitat.” A key purpose of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance as stated at  17.1.2(C) is to 'protect and enhance the natural environment'.   Constructing an apartment building over 13 football fields in size within 100 feet of riparian bird habitat ignores both the US Fish and Wildlife recommendation and this primary purpose of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance 'to protect and enhance the natural environment'. Clearly, preserving this historic parking area via Eminent Domain for use by park visitors serves multiple beneficial public interests. Therefore,  we request that Lakewood City Council acquire the existing parking lot on the north, west and south sides of the Irongate property at 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, Colorado 80226 for an estimated area of at least 78,000 square feet via Eminent Domain instead of paving a proposed new parking lot on undeveloped, unpaved city land in or near the park itself. Funding Options: Both 777 S Yarrow and Belmar Park are in the West Alameda Corridor Reinvestment Area (WACRA).   According to the Executive Director of the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA), the reason Belmar Park is in the WACRA is so that WACRA funds may be spent to improve the park.  However, no such funds have ever been spent by the WACRA on Belmar Park in over 25 years that the WACRA has been in existence.   Preserving the existing parking area would directly benefit Belmar Park and would be an appropriate use of these funds that have not yet been used for the benefit of the park in over 25 years. Funds from the developer might also be redirected to this improvement instead of paving a new lot on undeveloped public land on the north side of 777 S Yarrow. For further information or to receive email updates, visit

S Farthing
774 supporters
Update posted 8 hours ago

Petition to Timothy Gambin, Roberta Metsola, Arnold Cassola, Alfred Sant, David Casa, Graffitti movement, FAA , Bernard Grech, Graham Bencini, Joseph F. Caruana, Alan , 123


SIGN THE PARLIAMENTARY PETITION HERE AS THIS IS WHAT COUNTS!! DON'T SIGN ONLY THE CHANGE.ORG PETITION AS IT'S WORTHLESS. MUST SIGN THE PARLIAMENTARY PETITION HERE AND AFTER SIGNING DON'T FORGET TO CLICK ON THE LINK IN THE EMAIL YOU RECIEVE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE DETAILS: It is a well known fact that Malta's prevailing wind is the North Westerly wind. This is why Malta's power station was built in Delimara. However it seems politicians have lost their wisdom since 1992. Politicians are now planning to build a garbage waste incinerator in MAGHTAB. Dangerous cancerous fumes will pass over the most populous regions of Malta. The North harbour area and south east regions (Maghtab, Naxxar, Iklin, Birkirkara, Qormi, Lija, Attard, Balzan, Birkirkara, Zebbug, Mosta, Gharghur, Sliema, Madliena, Swieqi, San Gwann, Kappara, St Julian's, Sliema, Valletta, Marsa, Bormla, Cospicua, Senglea, Kalkara Marsacala, Fgura, Marsaxlokk, B'Bugia, Luqa). Providing cancerous fumes to all residents. Empty promises claim filters will be installed on chimneys. But the wise know that these will be empty promises. Governments no matter of what colour can never be trusted, we've seen their capabilities ( unifinished roads for summer, construction waste in the sea, the management of comino, unfinished projects in time for Small nation's games, engineered landfills that are anything but engineered and very smelly). Nature only can be trusted and the ever trusty North Westerly winds that would blow the cancerous fumes off shore!

A Bonell
1,549 supporters
Update posted 10 hours ago

Petition to


Don’t blast the Agulhas Banks – Don’t do it CGG - you’re killing our future. Do you love the ocean? How about one of South Africa’s most bio-diverse marine environments – the Agulhas Banks? How about whales, dolphins, turtles, sardines, squid and every living thing that calls this home and relies on this unique marine biodiversity hotspot to breed and grow? Do you think it ok that we blast a world based on sound with a wall of such intense sonic booms that will likely kill turtle hatchlings drifting down the Agulhas current to their feeding grounds? That will kill plankton which is the start of the marine food chain? That will possibly stop the Sardine Run from starting? Heard of kingklip, or chokka (squid), what happens to their eggs and spawn when hit by the sonic blasts from airguns? What happens to the fisher people and industry that rely on the Banks and what it produces for their livelihood? What if all of this was due to start in January 2024? Just two months from now? What if this is only based on desktop research? For a highly diverse marine area roughly 9000 km2 in size and between 200m and 4000m deep in places. Surely that’s not anywhere close to sufficient to know the impact? What if this was for an industry that doesn’t need to do what it’s doing and by the time these resources come on stream they’re likely to be obsolete? What if the company doing this hasn’t been commissioned to do it, but are simply speculating, hoping they find something they can sell? On the 16 November the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) gave the seismic survey company CGG the environmental authorisation (EA) to proceed with their speculative survey that stretches from approximately 120 km south of Plett, 45 km from Cape St Francis, and 60 km from Gqeberha/Port Elizabeth. This despite extensive input from fisher communities, the calamari industry, marine scientists, local officials, ordinary citizens and the like, all opposed to the impact of the airgun array, all deeply concerned about its impact on a global marine biodiversity hotspot.   The Agulhas Banks is unique and critical to South Africa’s marine ecosystem. Turtle hatchlings come down the Agulhas at the time of the survey. What will the loss of an entire season of hatchlings do to the endangered species? The Sardine run starts in the Agulhas at the time of the survey before it heads up the coast. What will they do if faced with a wall of sonic blasts, 24/7 for 4-5 months? The PE Corals Marine Protected Area (MPA) serves to protect kingklip and other species, but only covers a fraction of their adjacent spawning grounds. The chokka/squid industry believes a previously low-catch season is directly linked to a previous survey. These types of surveys, namely 3-D seismic surveys have one purpose and that’s to explore for oil and gas reserves. The CGG survey was suspended previously because the ship they wanted to use, the Amazon Warrior, was interdicted by Wild Coast communities in their case against Shell. The UN’s climate commission (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) all agree that to get to Carbon Net Zero by 2050, no new oil and gas reserves are needed. The Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) sees a very limited role for gas in the transition to renewables, and unlike Europe we don’t have the necessary gas infrastructure to pipe gas to homes and businesses. By the time any resources become commercially viable, green hydrogen/ammonia will have made gas obsolete. So why do it? Just for profit, just to ensure oil and gas companies can assure their investors they have a pipeline of reserves? The seismic survey isn’t economically viable, it will have irreversible ecosystem impacts, and no jobs will come of it. This isn’t what our Constitution (Sect 24) had in mind about “ecologically sustainable development” and “preventing pollution and ecological degradation” to ensure an “environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations”. Simply put, if we want our kids to have the marine ecosystems we have, seismic surveys will destroy not build that future.   So what can you do? REGISTER an APPEAL BY the 13 December 2023, with the DMRE Appeal Authority the prescribed form. It very important to follow the exact procedure. Write to Minister Barbara Creecy and Minister Gwede Mantashe and let them know your views. Reach Minister Creecy through and; and reach Minister Mantashe and Write to CGG ( and let them know your views Social media the heck out of why this is a bad idea. Using hashtags like #whostoleouroceans Tap into existing protest actions via the likes of Green Connection ( Oceans not Oil ( Natural Justice ( Earthlife Africa ( SAFCEI ( and Centre for Environmental Rights (CER at Find out about local forums opposing this, and go help out with protest action or other activities. For instance Plett has a very active environmental forum that can be contacted at or if in Nelson Mandela Bay look up the Algoa Bay Ocean Stewards (ABOS) at Even though petitions like this don’t have legal standing in SA, they are great and critical tools to mobilise communities and put pressure on decision-makers. That’s how the Shell case started. The more heat the hotter their seat. So sign up to the general petition against oil and gas at and please share the heck out of this one Go look at the documents used to justify this decision at the Environmental Assessment Practitioner’s (EAP) site (namely SLR)  and can be found here: and if not already registered as an interested and affected party (I&AP) ask SLR to register you at Petition on behalf of Algoa Bay Ocean Stewards (ABOS)    

Jennifer Lindridge
2,741 supporters
Update posted 11 hours ago

Petition to

Improve New Mexico's Air Quality- Support the Health,Environment & Equity Impacts Reg

                                 Improve New Mexico's Air Quality-                  Support the Health, Environment & Equity Impacts Regulation         The Mountain View Coalition seeks your support for the proposed Health, Environment, and Equity Impacts Regulation.   The Mountain View Coalition has petitioned the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board to adopt this draft regulation.  Our purpose is to protect public health and the environment from air pollution. Mountain View Neighborhood, on the east bank of the Rio Grande in the far South Valley of Bernalillo County, is a residential and agricultural community.   Our elementary school has been open for 100 years.  We are predominantly Spanish-speaking, low-income, and working class.  Since the 1970s, dirty industrial development has been dumped in our neighborhood.  The Environmental Protection Agency has defined Mt. View as an environmental justice community, meaning our health is endangered due to the disproportionate amount of pollutants generated in our community.  We have worked diligently for many years to counter the ongoing onslaught of industrial development. Mountain View and other neighborhoods in the County that are at risk environmentally currently have no way to monitor the cumulative impacts of the disproportionate generation of air pollutants in their backyards.  Pollution generated here in Mountain View contributes to the County's overall air pollution, causing the region to exceed federal limits on ozone.   The new regulation will allow the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (which oversees county-wide air quality) and the Air Quality Control Board to address the disparate impacts of air pollution by denying air pollution permits to new facilities proposed in communities that already bear a disproportionate burden.   This new regulation will also contribute to better air quality county-wide.  Our hope is that it will serve as a model for the State of New Mexico to establish a statewide cumulative impact law. Please sign our petition to demonstrate the widespread support of this new regulation. Here is the FAQ sheet on the proposed regulation: Health, Environment & Equity Impacts Regulation FAQs How will this regulation improve the lives of Bernalillo County Residents? The new rule will allow the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (EHD) and the Air Quality Control Board to address the disparate impacts of air pollution negatively impacting the health and quality of life of Bernalillo County residents by denying air pollution permits to facilities proposed in communities already bearing the disproportionate burden of air pollution. This will also contribute to better air quality county-wide and provide for a healthier Bernalillo County overall. What does this regulation do and how does it do it?The regulation requires EHD to deny a permit application if it will be located in an overburdened community and negatively impact the health of residents in that community. Specifically, EHD and the permit applicant will work together to first identify whether the proposed polluting facility will be located in an overburdened community, meaning a community that is already facing the disparate impacts of existing air pollution. If the facility is proposed to be located in an overburdened community, the applicant must perform a Disparate Impact Screening and evaluate nine identified Health Indicators.1 The permit application will be denied if any one of nine health indicators in the area already exceeds the county average for those indicators. If the permit application is not denied based on the nine Health Indicators, but the facility will be located in an overburdened community, the permit applicant must provide a Health, Environment and Equity Impacts Analysis and Report (HEE Report) to EHD. If this HEE Report indicates that the proposed facility will violate certain conditions identified in the rule, the permit application will be denied. If the permit application is not denied by EHD, the EHD may issue the permit, subject to mitigation measures informed by the Health, Equity and Environment Report and the community. How is the public able to participate in the process? If EHD does not deny the permit application based on the Disparate Impacts Screening, the applicant will have to provide a Health, Environment and Equity Impacts Report to the Department. EHD must hold a public hearing on that Report in which the public will be able to 1 The nine identified Health Indicators are: 1) adult asthma rate, 2) child asthma rate, 3) the percentage of adults over age 65, 4) the percentage of children under age 18, 5) emergency department admission rate, 6) cancer rate or cancer mortality rate, 7) cardiovascular disease incidence or mortality rate, 8) autoimmune disease incidence or mortality rate, and 9) overall mortality rate.participate. Importantly, the new rule also allows for community testimony and community-based participatory research to be given the same weight as the technical expertise and testimony provided by the applicant and EHD. This testimony may influence whether EHD will deny a permit application and may be used to inform any mitigation measures included in an issued permit. If EHD issues a permit to an applicant for a facility located in an overburdened community, EHD must also establish a Resident Advisory Committee, made up of self-selected residents from the community. This committee will meet twice per year with EHD to provide feedback on the facility’s compliance with permit conditions. When will a permit application be denied? There are two instances when EHD may deny a permit application based on this rule. The first occurs when the applicant performs a Disparate Impact Screening and any one of the nine health indicators listed exceeds the Bernalillo County average. If a permit is not denied based on the Disparate Impact Screening, EHD will deny a permit application if, based on the Health, Environment and Equity Impacts Report, the facility is shown to: 1) violate air quality standards, 2) result in the total emission of ten tons per year of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the overburdened community, or 3) the applicant has a facility that is not in compliance with existing permit conditions or is currently or in the last ten years has violated any environmental law of any state. Important Definitions ●  Overburdened Community: A census tract and all contiguous census tracts where the combined permitted emissions from all sources are 10 tons per year of Hazardous Air Pollutants or 25 tons per year of combined criteria pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants●  Disparate Impact Screening: The process by which a permit applicant evaluates a census tract in which its operation is proposed and all contiguous census tracts to determine whether the proposed facility will impact an overburdened community.●  Cumulative Impacts: The exposures, public health, and environmental effects from the combined emissions and discharges in a geographic area, including air emissions from all existing and reasonably foreseeable sources, routinely, accidentally or otherwise released and non-chemical stressors. Cumulative Impacts shall take into account sensitive populations and socio-economic factors. For more information, contact: or (505) 980-5239 HEEREG FAQs Nov 2022 Here is the legal petition submitted to the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board: ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO AMEND TITLE 20, CHAPTER 11 OF THE NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO REQUIRE REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND EQUITY IMPACTS AQCB Petition No. Mountain View Neighborhood Association, Mountain View Community Action. Friends of Valle de Oro, Petitioners.The Mountain View Neighborhood Association, Mountain View Community Action and Friends of Valle de Oro (collectively “Mountain View Coalition”), respectfully petition the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (“Board”) to hear and adopt the following proposed regulatory amendments to Title 20, Chapter 11 of the New Mexico Administrative Code, pursuant to its authority under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 74-2-1 et seq. (the “Act”), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMAC et seq. The proposed regulatory change is attached as Exhibit A. The Mountain View Coalition submits this Petition and proposed rule change because public health and environmental impacts from air pollution in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are heavily concentrated in low-income and neighborhoods of color causing increased risk of disease and lower life expectancy in those neighborhoods. In order to begin to address the profound inequalities in exposure to pollutants and attendant adverse health outcomes, the proposed rule requires that the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Division (“Department”) consider the health, environmental and equity impacts of any new operation permitted under the Act and allow the Department to approve appropriate mitigation of those impacts. In support of its petition, the Mountain View Coalition STATES:1THE BOARD HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT THE PROPOSED RULE 1. The Board is authorized to adopt the proposed changes to the Board’s regulations pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 74-2-5(B)(1) and et seq. NMAC. 2. Section 74-2-5(B)(1) specifically allows the Board to “adopt, promulgate ... and amend” regulations, consistent with the Act. 3. Further, the Act provides that Board regulations “shall prevent or abate air pollution.” NMSA 1978, § 74-2-5(B)(1). 4. The Act defines “air pollution” as emitting air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere “in quantities and of a duration that may with reasonable probability injure human health or animal or plant life or as may unreasonably interfere with the public welfare ... or the reasonable use of property.” Id. at § 74-2-2(B). 5. Any regulation the Board promulgates must be consistent with the Act. § 74-2- 5(B)(1). See, Wylie Bros. Contracting Co. v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, 1969-NMCA-089 ¶ 54, 80 N.M. 633, 644 (Local board regulations need not be identical to state regulations adopted by the state board, only consistent with statutory language). 6. The proposed regulation is consistent with the Act because it is intended to allow the Department and Board to evaluate the health and environmental equity impacts of air emissions from any proposed source on the environment, property and human health, assisting the Department and Board in preventing and abating air pollution. 7. Moreover, the proposed regulation is authorized by the Act. To achieve the goal of preventing and abating air pollution, the Act gives the Board the authority to require “any person” emitting “any air contaminant” to install, use and maintain emission monitoring devices,2sample emissions, and “provide ... reasonable information relating to the emission of air contaminants.” NMSA 1978, § 74-2-5(C)(6). 8. The Act also provides that the Board may adopt rules more stringent than the federal Clean Air Act or federal regulations or regulate areas, which are not regulated pursuant to the Clean Air Act or federal regulations, provided those rules will be more protective of public health and the environment. Id. at § 74-2-5(G). 9. In promulgating its regulations, the Board must give the weight it deems appropriate to all facts and circumstances including the “character and degree of injury to or interference with health, welfare, visibility and property,” “the public interest,” and the “technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating air contaminants.” Id. at § 74-2-5(F). 10. Clean Air Act is the federal law that serves as the authority for the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act. Congress declared that the Clean Air Act was intended “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). As such, the rule also furthers the purposes of the Clean Air Act as it allows the Board to protect and promote public health. OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE ENACTED HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EQUITY IMPACTS ANALYSES 11. Other jurisdictions have acknowledged the health and environmental problems associated with the disparate impacts of pollution on low-income communities and communities of color, and have enacted rules to address those disparities. 12. In 2008, Minnesota’s legislature amended the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act to allow the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) to evaluate and address the3cumulative air impacts in a specific area of Minneapolis. Ellickson, Kristie, et al., Cumulative Risk Assessment and Environmental Equity in Air Permitting: Interpretation, Methods, Community Participation and Implementation of a Unique Statute, 8 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 4140 (2011). 13. The amendment was enacted specifically to address the disproportionate impacts of air pollution in a low-income and minority area of Minneapolis that contained dense concentrations of polluting industry. Id. at 4142. 14. The statute requires not only that the MPCA consider the cumulative risks associated with sources of air pollution, but also environmental equity, i.e., the fairness of placing a polluting source in neighborhoods already burdened by air pollution. 15. The state of New Jersey has also enacted legislation, with implementing regulations pending, that is intended to remedy disproportionate air pollution impacts on communities of color. N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 13:1d-157 – 161 (2021). 16. New Jersey’s statute requires that an applicant for certain permits, including air emission permits, in an overburdened community complete an “environmental justice impact statement” that discloses and evaluates the environmental stressors of the proposed facility and existing environmental stressors. Id. at §13:1d-160a. 17. New Jersey’s statute also requires the New Jersey Department of Environmental Quality to deny a permit application if it finds that the cumulative environmental stressors in an overburdened community are disproportionate compared to communities within the state that are not overburdened. Id. at § 13:1d-160c.4THE HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND EQUITY IMPACTS ANALYSIS RULE IS NECESSARY IN ALBUQUERQUE AND BERNALILLO COUNTY TO PREVENT AND ABATE AIR POLLUTION AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROPERTY 18. This rule is necessary because the impacts of air pollution on low-income communities and communities of color in Bernalillo County are significant. The proposed regulation provides information necessary for the Department and Board to make decisions that better protect residents’ health, environment and property. 19. Air pollution is associated with a range of health problems, including cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses, among other diseases. See, e.g., Morello-Frosch, R. and Jesdale, B., Separate and Unequal: Residential Segregation and Estimated Cancer Risks Associated with Ambient Air Toxics in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 114 Environmental Health Perspectives 386 (2006); Kampa, Marilena and Castanas, Elias, Human Health Effects of Air Pollution, 151 Environmental Pollution 362 (Jan. 2008); Straif, K., et al., eds., Air Pollution and Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Scientific Publication No. 161 (2013), available at:; Danesh Yadzi, et al., Long-Term Association of Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions Among Medicare Participants Using a Doubly Robust Additive Model, 143 Circulation 1584 (April 20, 2021). 20. The health impacts of air pollution also negatively impact the economy, such that this rule promotes a robust and functional economy in Bernalillo County. See, e.g. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, et al., Heart disease and stroke statistics—2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association, 137 Circulation (2018); see also, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, available at: Low-income and communities of color are particularly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. See, e.g., Morello-Frosch, et al., Environmental Justice and Regional Inequality in Southern California: Implications for Future Research, 110 Environmental Health Perspectives 149 (2002); Stewart, John, et al., Environmental Justice and Health Effects of Urban Air Pollution, 107 J. of the Nat’l Med. Ass’n 50 (Feb. 2015); Pastor, Manuel, et al., The Air is Always Cleaner on the Other Side: Race, Space, and Ambient Air Toxics Exposures in California, 27 J. of Urban Affairs 127 (Dec. 2, 2016). 22. Low-income communities and communities of color are also particularly vulnerable to adverse health impacts of air pollution because polluting industries disproportionally locate in those communities. Environmental Justice and Regional Inequality in Southern California: Implications for Future Research, at 151-152. 23. In addition to being overburdened by polluting industry, low-income and communities of color have less access to health care and nutritious food than more advantaged communities. See, e.g., Riley, Wayne J., Health Disparities: Gaps in Access, Quality and Affordability of Medical Care, 123 Transactions of the Am. Clinical and Climatological Ass’n 167 (2012); Bower, Kelly M., et al., The Intersection of Neighborhood Racial Segregation, Poverty and Urbanicity and its Impact on Food Store Availability in the United States, 58 Preventative Medicine 33 (Jan. 2014). 24. These “social determinants of health,” or the conditions in places where people live, work and play that affect health, collectively amplify the health impacts of concentrated air emissions on overburdened communities. See, e.g., Cook, Quindelyn, et al., The Impact of Environmental Injustice and Social Determinants of Health on the Role of Air Pollution in6Asthma and Allergic Diseases in the United States, 148 J. of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1089 (Nov. 2021). 25. As a result, public health professionals have recommended analyzing the cumulative health effects of multiple air contaminants from multiple sources. Environmental Justice and Regional Inequality in Southern California: Implications for Future Research at 149. 26. Like similar communities elsewhere in the United States, low-income communities and communities of color in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are disproportionately impacted by air pollution and suffer disproportionate health problems because of those impacts. 27. A 2012 study on public health, pollution exposure, poverty and race demonstrates that low-income and minority communities in Bernalillo County have a greater risk than more affluent and non-minority communities to being exposed to environmental pollutants. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Place Matters for Health in Bernalillo County: Ensuring Opportunities for Good Health for All (Sept. 2012) at 17-18 (“Good Health for All Study”). A copy of that study is attached as Exhibit B. 28. The Good Health for All Study examined the racial and economic data for census tracts in Bernalillo County and compared those data to data about life expectancy and sources of environmental pollution in the census tracts studied. Id. at 2. 29. The Good Health for All Study found that neighborhoods with higher populations of Latinos and recent immigrants with high levels of poverty are more likely to contain dense concentrations of polluting facilities. Id. at 16; Map 11. 30. These neighborhoods are located primarily in Downtown, the Southeast Heights, the South Valley and the North Valley. Id.731. Further, people in these “high risk neighborhoods” have an elevated risk for adverse health impacts and a shorter life expectancy. Id. at 17-19; 18, Figs. 6, 7. 32. Conversely, neighborhoods with higher proportions of White and wealthy residents have a lower concentration of toxic facilities and a longer life expectancy, and are considered “low risk neighborhoods”. Id. 33. Indeed, the difference in life expectancy between high risk neighborhoods and low risk neighborhoods is dramatic. The residents of high risk neighborhoods can expect to live an average of 5.2 fewer years than residents living in low risk neighborhoods. Id. at 1,13, Fig. 5. 34. The Good Health for All Study recommends several kinds of impact analyses as ways to address increased pollution risks in low-income and minority communities. Id. at 19-20. 35. Both the recommended impact assessments include evaluating the cumulative and combined impacts of multiple pollution sources. Id.36. The Good Health for All Study recommendations echo those of the 2007 Environmental Justice Task Force (“Task Force”) that the Board created to review and evaluate the Board’s air quality permitting policies and practices. 37. The Task Force found that the Board’s policies, procedures and regulations, which are still in effect today, do not adequately address environmental and public health issues in communities disproportionately burdened by air pollution. Environmental Justice Task Force, Final Report Submitted to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board at 5 (2008). 38. The Task Force recommended that the Board adopt cumulative environmental impact assessment provisions. Id.839. For all the above reasons, the Mountain View Coalition requests that the Board hear and adopt the proposed health, environmental and equity impact regulation because the regulation will allow the Board to address the cumulative and disparate burden of air pollution on Bernalillo County residents living in lower income communities of color. Petitioners anticipate a hearing on this Petition will take approximately five (5) days. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of November, 2022. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER By: _________________________________ Eric Jantz Maslyn Locke722 Isleta Boulevard SE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87105 (505) 989-9022 Attorneys for Petitioners  

Marla Painter
651 supporters