Environmental Justice for All? The Navy's Recent Failure to Protect North Carolina's Citizens

In 2000, the United States Navy determined that Washington County, North Carolina was the preferred site for its new Outlying Landing Field (OLF) relocation project. At the time OLF was located in Chesapeake, Virginia. The author cites that it initially appeared that the Navy selected the North Carolina location after a thorough review of the alternatives generated during the required NEPA process. After a dissection of the issues surrounding the process, it became clear that Washington County was a preselected and a reverse engineering of the NEPA process to create favorable conditions had occurred. The OLF location, at the time, was a wealthy area of Virginia where the Navy was constantly at odds with residents of the area over noise pollution generated from the field.

The U.S. District Court of North Carolina issued a sweeping injunction on the project based on the systematic deficiency of the Navy’s EIS and the subjective intent of the Navy in placing the OLF in Washington County, North Carolina. On appeal by the Navy, The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Navy failed to take a “hard environmental look” at environmental impacts, but lifted the subjective intent injunction incorrectly dismissing it as irrelevant.

A simple demographic analysis would shed some light on that subject. The area around the Virginia OLF had a median household income of approximately $51,000 per year with only 7 percent of the city’s residents living at or below the poverty line. Median income in
Washington County area was just under $29,000 per year, with 22 percent of the population at or below the poverty line. The Chesapeake area is 29 percent African-American, compared to 49 percent of the Washington County area 1. After a review of the Record of Decision from the court of appeals, the author determined that it was an issue of economics and politics. The Navy chose the location it did because the residences were less likely to interfere with their operation, and they did not possess the political or economic means that the residents around the Virginia did.

The author cited the Navy’s DEIS and SEIS as a blatant disregard for the NEPA process and most striking of the specific failures identified in the article was the Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) analysis that the Navy was required to perform. The Navy concluded that the strike hazard was minimal and the risk to pilots was not significant. Many flight operations experts disagreed and with a retired air force colonial calling the Navy selection one of the worst areas in the U.S. with respect to a potential BASH hazard. In addition to the BASH analysis, it was cited that the Navy also failed to disclose negative evidence to their position, failed to properly conduct comparative analysis and did not assess the cumulative environmental impacts.

In the text there was a distinction direct and indirect intent. This case could prove difficult to classify in that context, but I would be inclined to argue for direct discrimination based on the through reverse engineering process engaging in by the Navy as well as the omission of facts relevant to the issues at hand. One could argue for market rationality based of the value of land and the location of the Washington county land to Naval Support Operations, but as the author described the Navy’s disregard of the NEPA process with the subjective intent being clear. Also the weakened political strength on the Washington County Area as well as the States economics reliance on the Navy’s presence in the areas supports a position of direct intent.


Eubanks, William S., Environmental Justice for All? The Navy's Recent Failure to Protect North Carolina's Citizens(April 15, 2008). North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 206, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1285559
1. A Source of the demographical statistics was not provided in the article.