ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUALITY IN WASHINGTON, DC:

A COMPARISON OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ALONG THE

ANACOSTIA AND POTOMAC RIVERS

A Research Paper

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of Cornell University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Regional Planning

by

Veronica O. Davis

January 2004

© 2004 Veronica O. Davis

ABSTRACT

Two rivers are prominent in Washington, DC. Once, both were pristine,

but with the city’s growth, they became badly polluted. The Potomac River

has since been transformed from a “national disgrace” to “Washington’s best

kept secret,” while the Anacostia River remains a “national embarrassment.”

Events suggest that racial inequality and class differences shaped many of the

decisions and policies that led to the current environmental inequality. One of

the major influences has been uneven federal funding and efforts for

restoration.

I begin with a brief history of funding efforts for each river. I then show

how unequal environmental burden is a national problem and give a brief

history of environmental inequality, using three case studies from different

parts of the country.

Next, I review the history of neighborhood formation around each river,

showing how historic preservation and city revitalization policies separated

blacks and whites. By 1960, the areas around the Anacostia River had been

turned into predominately communities of color, while the areas around the

Potomac River had become predominately white communities. A Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) analysis supports these findings with maps that

show a clustering of non-whites and poor around the Anacostia River for 1970

and 1980.

Lastly, a correlation analysis shows that there was a strong negative

correlation between race and income by census tract in Washington, DC in

1950 and 1960, with Anacostia neighborhoods housing poor people of color.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Veronica O. Davis grew up in Maplewood, New Jersey. As a little girl

from the suburbs, she traveled through the inner city projects of Newark to run

errands with her parents. Looking at broken windows on buildings and

children playing in abandoned lots, she learned early that not everyone had

the same opportunities in life. It was then that her passion to make a positive

impact in communities of color was inspired.

Only five days after graduating from high school, Veronica entered the

University of Maryland, College Park. During her tenure, she was recognized

for her leadership within the A. James Clark School of Engineering and

academics in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. She

was initiated into Chi Epsilon, the National Civil Engineering Honor Society, as

a sophomore. In May 2001, she graduated with a BS in Civil and

Environmental Engineering and a Citation in Science, Technology, and

Society.

She enrolled at Cornell University in the Department of City and

Regional Planning in the fall of 2001. She received a Master of Engineering

(Civil) in Engineering Management in May 2003. For her Master of Regional

Planning, she has focused on land use planning and economic development.

While in graduate school, she held several regional leadership positions within

the National Society of Black Engineers.

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this research paper to Selena Smalls a dear friend who was a victim of a senseless act of violence. God called her home on October 11, 2002. I

will fight for justice so her death will not be in vain.

“When one commits oneself to the struggle, it must be for a lifetime” – Angela Davis

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Above all, I have to give praise and honor to God who has given me the

strength, endurance, and wisdom needed to write this paper. Next, I would

like to thank my family who has always been my biggest supporters and my

ambassadors of assurance. My dad taught me discipline and focus; my mom

taught me compassion and selflessness; my sister, Esa, taught me

determination and the meaning of having passion in life.

I have to thank my advisors Bill Goldsmith, Department of City and

Regional Planning, and Mark Turnquist, Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, for their patience, council, and encouragement

through the writing of this paper. I also appreciate the time they spent to help

me develop both academically and personally.

Ann-Margaret Esnard’s introduction to environmental planning class

laid the foundation for the concepts in this paper. She asked me the questions

that expanded this from a paper in her class to a larger-scale research project.

In Michelle Thompson’s introduction to geographic information systems, I

learned to explain what was occurring spatially through maps.

In the wake of September 11th and increased national security,

obtaining data for the nation’s capital was difficult. I would like to thank the

following people for helping me procure data:

• Kathy Stroud, University of Maryland Libraries

• Alissa Berzen, Office of Planning for Washington, DC

v

• Jair Lynch, Jair Lynch Companies

• Jonathon Weinstein, Jair Lynch Companies

Throughout the writing of this paper, I experienced periods of frustration

and self-doubt. I would like thank my friends for listening to my babble and

providing positive reinforcement, particularly, Joe Banda, who would not let me

abandon my dreams. In addition, Frank Trinity-Davies who constantly

challenged my thought process to help me question if there was really ever a

box in the first place (in reference to thinking outside of the box).

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH................................................................................................................ iii DEDICATION........................................................................................................................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1: THE BREATHTAKING POTOMAC RIVER AND BEGRIMED ANACOSTIA RIVER......................................................................................................................................................1

BREATHTAKING POTOMAC RIVER .........................................................................................................1 BEGRIMED ANACOSTIA RIVER ..............................................................................................................3 POTOMAC RIVER VERSUS THE ANACOSTIA RIVER.................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT, COLOR AND CLASS .......................................6 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL EVIDENCE .......................................................................................7 HEALTH AFFECTS................................................................................................................................10 CASE STUDIES .....................................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 3: NEIGHBORHOOD FORMATION IN WASHINGTON, DC THROUGH GENTRIFICATION, AND PUBLIC POLICY ..................................................................................15

GEORGETOWN AS AN EXAMPLE OF GENTRIFICATION IN NW DC .........................................................16 THE SW WATERFRONT EXAMPLE OF GENTRIFICATION ........................................................................18 ANACOSTIA: DUMPING AND NEGLECT OF PEOPLE................................................................................19 POPULATION CHANGE 1950-1960 .......................................................................................................20

CHAPTER 4: SPATIAL COMPARISON OF RACE AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1970-1990 .................................................................21

POLARIZATION OF RACE IN 1970.........................................................................................................21 SPATIAL COMPARISON OF RACE 1980 .................................................................................................21 PERCENT OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY, 1970..............................................................................22 PERCENT OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY BY RACE, 1980...............................................................22

CHAPTER 5: CORRELATION OF RACE AND INCOME 1950 AND 1960.................................27 ANACOSTIA RIVER ..............................................................................................................................27 POTOMAC RIVER .................................................................................................................................28

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX A. USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) TO INVETSIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUALITY ..................................................................................................31 APPENDIX B: USING MICROSOFT EXCEL TO PERFORM A CORRELATION ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................................33 BIBLIOGRPAHY .................................................................................................................................39

vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Ten Largest White Communities in Baton Rouge, LA, 1986 ............ 13 Table 2: Ten Largest Black Communities in Baton Rouge, LA, 1986............. 13 Table 3: Percent Change 1950-1960 ............................................................. 20 Table 4: Correlation of Race and Income, Anacostia River, 1950.................. 27 Table 5: Correlation of Race and Income, Anacostia River, 1960.................. 28 Table 6: Correlation of Race and Income, Potomac River, 1950.................... 28 Table 7: Correlation of Race and Income, Potomac River, 1960.................... 29 Table 8: Race and Income, Potomac & Anacostia River, 1950...................... 34 Table 9: Race and Income, Anacostia & Potomac River, 1960...................... 34

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: GIS Map Showing Geography of DC................................................. 2 Figure 2: Map of Southern States..................................................................... 9 Figure 3: GIS Map of Race, 1970................................................................... 23 Figure 4: GIS Map of Race, 1980................................................................... 24 Figure 5: GIS Map of Poverty, 1970 ............................................................... 25 Figure 6: GIS Map of Poverty by Race, 1980 ................................................. 26

ix

1

CHAPTER 1: THE BREATHTAKING POTOMAC RIVER AND BEGRIMED ANACOSTIA RIVER

The September 2003 edition of the US Airway’s Magazine, Attaché,

heralded the Potomac River as “one of the most beautiful, historic, and

exciting waterways in the world.”1 Within the same month, the Chesapeake

Quarterly Online described the Anacostia River as a “’ruined river’ and a

poster child for abused urban waterways.”2 A year earlier, the Natural

Resources Defense Council alleged, “the Anacostia is now impoverished and

underused.”3 The Potomac River and the Anacostia River are the defining

elements of the geography of Washington, DC. As Figure 1 indicates,

nowhere in the District are they more than ten miles apart. Yet, the Potomac

River receives praises, while the Anacostia is “a national embarrassment.”4

Breathtaking Potomac River

President Lyndon B Johnson called the algae infested Potomac River ‘a

national disgrace’ in the 1960’s.”5 Shortly after, Potomac River communities

began receiving federal funding for river restoration and redevelopment of the

waterfront. Over four decades, agencies and municipalities on the Potomac

River have received over five-billion dollars for environmental restoration.6

1 Barefoot, Cody. Destination: Washington, DC. Attaché. September 2003. 2 Wennersten, John R. 2003. The Anacostia: Restoring a Ruined River. The Chesapeake Quarterly Online. Vol 2. Num. 2. <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CQ/V02N2/main.html> [assessed 9 October 2003] 3 Natural Resources Defense Council. 2002. Cleaning Up the Anacostia River. <http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/fanacost.asp> [assessed 9 October 2003]. 4 Ibid 5 The Sustainable Washington Alliance. 2001. Do You Know? Healthy Rivers and You. <http://www.swampnet.org/swehag/c.html> [assessed 15 September 2003]. 6 Loeb, Vernon. Currents of Change. The Washington Post. 1 December 1996.

2

Figure 1: GIS Map Showing Geography of DC

3

The US Council on Environmental Quality designated the Potomac

River as an American Heritage River in 1998. This gave the river protection

under US Executive Order 13061 “Federal Support of Community Efforts

along American Heritage Rivers.”7 Along with protection comes federal

funding to support local efforts to preserve the history of the community and to

restore the river. Only sixteen rivers in the US have the privilege of this

designation and the benefits.

Begrimed Anacostia River

In 1998, the American Rivers Conservation Organization listed the

Anacostia River as one of the twenty most polluted rivers in the United

States.8 The DC Department of Health (DC DOH) has a health advisory

against consuming fish from the river.9 According to the DC DOH, “the

Anacostia River remains aesthetically and chemically polluted as action to

clean up the sources of pollutants to the river has not taken place…Several

studies sponsored by the District of Columbia have shown high levels of toxic

pollutants in river bed sediments, particularly within the tidal Anacostia.” 10

In November of 2002, Earthjustice on behalf of Friends of the Earth

brought a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

7 US Environmental Protection Agency. What is the American Heritage Initaitve? American Heritage Rivers. <http://www.epa.gov/rivers/eo13061.html>. cassessed 23 March 2003] 8 American Rivers. Most Endangered Rivers 1988-2001. <http://www.amrivers.org/mostendangered/riverlist.htm> [assessed 1 May 2002]. 9 District of Columbia Department of Health. Fisheries and Wildlife. Public Health Advisory. <http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/fisheries_wildlife/licensing_phealthadvisory.shtm> [assessed 25 March 2003]. 10 District of Columbia Department of Health. Environmental Health Administration, Water Quality Division, The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment Executive Summary, 2000

4

over lenient enforcement of the Clean Water Act of 1972.11 They argue the

Anacostia River does not meet EPA standards on the total maximum daily

loads (TMDLs) of total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand,

resulting in low amounts of dissolved oxygen, high murkiness, and low

visibility.

One source of pollution for the Anacostia River is an antiquated

wastewater system along the basin. During heavy rains, the system is

overwhelmed, so there are sanitary sewage overflows (SSO). According to

Friends of the Earth, at least 1.5 billion gallons of sewage per year flows

directly into the Anacostia.12 In addition, the construction of high-density

housing and highway infrastructure has led to this degradation of the river and

the environment surrounding it primarily through surface run-off. Most of the

land adjacent to the river is industrial.

Potomac River versus the Anacostia River

Since the mid-sixties, there has been unequal treatment of the rivers in

the nation’s capital. The federal government has given significant amounts of

funding to restore the Potomac River, while the Anacostia River remains

forgotten. Why does the federal government treat the rivers so differently?

Why has the Potomac River received so much more funding than the

Anacostia River?

11 Friends of the Earth. 2002. Environmentalist Seek Court’s Help to Clean Up Anacostia River. 1 November. <http://www.foe.org/new/releases/1102anacostpr.html> [assessed 25 March 2003]. 12 Friends of the Earth. Anacostia River TMDL Briefs: Friends of the Earth v. USEPA, D.C. Cir. 02-1123 and 02-1124

5

I suspect the answer is racial inequality reinforced by class differences.

There is an unequal treatment in restoration efforts because the

neighborhoods along the Anacostia River are predominately communities of

color and low socioeconomic status, while the neighborhoods along the

Potomac River are predominately white and high socioeconomic status. This

paper investigates this hypothesis.

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT, COLOR AND CLASS

I believe there is an unequal treatment between the Anacostia River

and the Potomac River, because there are higher percentages of non-white,

poor residents around the Anacostia River. Such environmental inequality is

not unique to the DC area. In the dawning of a new era, environmental justice

is a growing concern across the US. It is important to examine the idea of

environmental inequality, evidence of its existence, health affects, and case

studies from other municipalities. This chapter presents only a small sampling

of the evidence.

The Civil Rights Movement began in the 1960s and the Environmental

Movement began shortly after. Since their inception, laws have been passed

and regulations have been implemented to protect the rights of all people and

protect the natural environment. There is a disproportionate environmental

burden of exposure to toxic wastes sites and polluted air and water carried by

African American, Hispanic, and Native American communities. This is

environmental racism.

The Reverend Benjamin Chavis, then the Executive Director of the

Commission for Racial Justice, coined the term environmental racism in 1987.

He defines it as:

racial discrimination in environmental policymaking and the enforcement of regulation and laws, the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic and hazardous waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities and the

6

7

history of excluding people of color from leadership in the environmental movement.13

Sometimes discriminatory practices in housing and employment of minorities

cause them to live in hazardous environments, and racism may be the

underlying cause in the variation in distribution of environmental burdens.

Some argue that environmental burden is not a function of race, but

rather socioeconomic status. For example, lower status people move in the

proximity of toxic sites where there is inexpensive housing. The

“implementation of environmental policy creates intended or unintended

consequences which have disproportionate impacts (adverse or beneficial) on

lower income persons, populations, or communities.”14

The Environmental Movement concentrated on the ecological concerns

of white, high socioeconomic status Americans. Urban planners assumed that

because whites were wealthier harming their environment would be a greater

financial burden than it would be in communities of color and poverty. The

joint examination of race and socioeconomic status together is called

environmental inequality.

National and Regional Level Evidence

Studies show there is a high correlation between the geographical

distribution of both people of color and low socioeconomic status and the

distribution of pollution, landfills incinerators, toxic waste dumps, lead

13 Williams, Christopher. 1998. Environmental Victims. (London, England: Earthscan Publications Ltd), 53 14 Land Loss Prevention Project. September 2003. <http://www.landloss.org/Commonly%20Used%20Environmental%20Justice%20Definitions.htm> [assessed 12 March 2000].

8

poisoning in children and contaminated waters. The National Wildlife

Federation reviewed sixty-four studies and found disparities separating race

were more numerous than disparities separating social class.15 African

American and Hispanic communities are over-represented in areas with toxic

waste dumps.16 Approximately half of African Americans and Hispanics live in

communities with one or more toxic wastes sites.17 A 1990 report by the

Greenpeace found that communities with existing incinerators have 89% more

people of color than the national average.18

In 1987, a study by the Commission for Racial Justice found that 60%

of African Americans and Hispanics and greater than 50% of Asians and

Native Americans live in areas of one or more toxic wastes sites.19 This

means that three out of five African Americans and Hispanics live in

‘uncontrolled environments’. The report also found that there was an uneven

distribution in the penalties for violating the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act. In areas where the residents were mostly white, the penalties

were 500% higher than areas where people of color are the greater

percentage of the population.

The Southern states of the US, as shown in Figure 2, are a good

regional example of environmental inequality. This region is associated with a

15 Westra, Laura and Peter S. Wenz. 1995. Faces of Environmental Racism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 4. 16 Miller, Char and Hal Rothman.1997. Out of the Woods. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press), 201. 17 Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai.1992. Race and Incidence of Environmental Hazards. (San Francisco, CA: Westview Press),15. 18 Westra, Laura and Peter S. Wenz. 1995. Faces of Environmental Racism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 6. 19 Williams, Christopher.1998. Environmental Victims. (London, England: Earthscan Publications Ltd.), 53.

9

history of blatant racism and discrimination. These states are home to

approximately fourteen million African Americans (1/5 of this region’s

population).

Figure 2: Map of Southern States

Source: Mapquest

Four landfills in zip codes in communities of color represent 63% of the

South’s total hazardous waste disposal capacity.20 In 1983, a study

conducted in the Environmental Protection Agency’s South Region 4, which

encompasses eight states, identified that three out of four landfills were in

areas where African Americans were the majority.21 The nation’s largest toxic

waste landfill, with waste from 45 states and foreign countries, is located in

Sumter County, Alabama in a predominately African American neighborhood.

In Houston, six of eight municipal incinerators and all five landfills are in

20 Bullard, Robert. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 40. 21 Foreman, Christopher Jr. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press), 18-19.

10

African American communities. Another incinerator is in a majority Mexican

American community.22

Health Affects

Environmental deterioration is a hazard to human health, particularly to

people of color living in toxic areas. People of color and lower socioeconomic

status have greater health problems and lower life expectancies than well-off

white populations. Given the EPA calculates air toxins alone account for

greater than 2,000 cases of cancer each year, then surely this burden unfairly

hurts poor people of color.23

One of the more detrimental toxins in predominately African-American

and Hispanic communities is lead. Lead poisoning affects four million children

each year. It is three times more likely to affect African American children than

white children.24 A 1988 report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry found that greater than 67% of urban children living in

households with an income of less than $6,000 had a blood lead level greater

than 15 µg/deciliter. It is a safe guess that the great majority of children in

these areas are children of color. For white children living in households with

the same income level the percentage was only 36%.25 The primary sources

of lead in minority communities are paint, urban soil, dust, and contaminated

drinking water.

22 Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai. 1992. Race and Incidence of Environmental Hazards. (San Francisco, CA: Westview Press), 13. 23 Ibid, 126. 24 Williams, Christopher. 1998. Environmental Victims. (London, England: Earthscan Publications Ltd.), 54. 25 Foreman, Christopher Jr. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press), 79.

11

Another condition the environment strongly influences is asthma.

Asthma affects fourteen million people each year according to the American

Lung Association.26 African Americans account for 22.1% of asthma related

deaths, but are only 12% of the total population. The primary causes of

asthma in African Americans are lung toxicities of metals (lead, mercury, and

hard metals), carcinogens (asbestos, nickel, and hydrocarbons), and dust.27

Case Studies

Several independent case studies have been performed across the

United States. They have all had similar findings that African American,

Hispanics, and Native Americans disproportionately carry the burden of the

degraded environment. Below are three that have been adapted from their

original text.

Chestertown, PA

Chestertown, PA is located about 20 miles southeast of Philadelphia.

In 2000, the population was about 4600 people of which African Americans

are about 65% of the population. However, they account for the 95% of the

residents living near waste facilities. Chestertown is also home to the fourth

largest garbage-burning incinerator in the nation. This incinerator is across

from an African American residential neighborhood. Next to this facility is the

largest chemotherapeutic medical waster center, Thermal Pure Systems.

Next to that is DELCORA, which is a sewage treatment facility. Chestertown

26 Ibid, 83. 27 Committee on Environmental Justice. 1999. Toward Environmental Justice. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press),15.

12

is also home to chemical companies, hospital incinerators, trash transfer

stations, and hazardous waste sites. The African American children of this

area receive lead exposure higher than the national average. Chestertown

also has the highest percentage of low birth rate; and the infant mortality rate

is double the rate of the whole county.28

Chicago, IL

In Chicago’s Southside lies a community of 150,000 residents known as

Altgeld Greens. The community is 70% African American and 11% Hispanic.

Hazardous wastes facilities, smelters, seven chemical plants, and five steel

plants encircle the community.29 There are also over one hundred industrial

plants, fifty active or closed waste dumps and 90% of the city’s landfills. In the

well water, there are traces of cyanide, benzene, toluene, and a high

concentration of lead. The community is also plagued with “childhood cancer,

prostate cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, hypertension, infant mortality,

and asthma.” 30

Baton Rouge, LA

A study in 1986 of the ten largest white communities and the ten largest

black communities in Baton Rouge showed discrepancies in the location of

hazardous waste sites. The following tables show the racial differences in

28 Pennsylvania Environmental Network. Environmental Racism in Chestertown. [assessed 25 March 2000]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://penweb.org/Chester>. 29 Westra, Laura and Peter S. Wenz. 1995. Faces of Environmental Racism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 6. 30 Committee on Environmental Justice. 1999. Toward Environmental Justice. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press), 29.

13

wastes sites and waste per capita. Only five hazardous waste sites exist in

communities where the population is predominately white, but there are fifteen

in predominately black communities. The zip code that has the most toxic

waste sites is 95% black. The number of residents per waste site in the

largest white communities is 24,800. Meanwhile in the largest black

communities there are 7340 residents per waste site.

Table 1: Ten Largest White Communities in Baton Rouge, LA, 1986 Area by Zip Code

Size of Population

Percent White Pop.

Percent Minority Pop.

No. of Wastes Sites*

70739 7,500 95 5 0 70744 2,900 97 3 0 70749 1,400 95 5 0 70754 5,200 98 2 1 70770 3,400 90 10 0 70774 4,200 100 0 0 70809 13,900 95 5 1 70814 14,300 97 3 0 70815 37,400 97 3 0 70816 34,200 97 3 3 Total 124,000 5

* Sites in communities with population under 1,000 were not considered

Table 2: Ten Largest Black Communities in Baton Rouge, LA, 1986 Area by Zip Code

Size of Population

Percent White Pop.

Percent Minority Pop.

No. of Waste Sites*

70722 5,300 0 100 0 70723 2,400 33 77 1 70725 1,100 29 79 2 70757 2,400 40 60 0 70760 7,900 0 100 1 70776 2,100 0 100 3 70788 4,600 49 51 1 70802 46,00 17 83 1 70807 26,500 5 95 6 70812 1,800 47 53 0 Total 110,100 15

14

* Sites in communities with population under 1,000 were not considered Adapted from Source: Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai. 1992. Race and Incidence of Environmental Hazards. (San Francisco, CA: Westview Press), 133. These case studies show that people of color bear the environmental

burden. Poor people also live in environmentally degraded areas because of

lower property values. How do racism and class differences factor into

neighborhood formation? This question is treated in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 3: NEIGHBORHOOD FORMATION IN WASHINGTON, DC THROUGH GENTRIFICATION, AND PUBLIC POLICY

Neighborhoods form for many reasons. Street layout, zoning, or

settlement by cultures all contribute to neighborhood boundary definitions.

Public policy, redlining by mortgage companies and banks, bias of realtors,

and gentrification probably strongly influenced many of the neighborhoods in

the District of Columbia. Between 1920 and 1960, revitalization, historic

preservation and a slew of public and private policies transformed many of the

areas along the Potomac River into high socioeconomic status, white

communities. By the late 1950’s, if Wesley Heights, Cleveland Park, Glover

Park, Foxhall, Burleith, and Georgetown had been combined as a county they

would have been one of the richest municipalities in the US. 31 During this

same period, neighborhoods along the Anacostia River were moving in the

opposite direction, becoming increasingly communities of color and lower

socioeconomic status.

In the late sixties, an article in The Washington Post revealed

discriminatory real estate practices in the city’s northwest quadrant. It found

that real estate agents offered white customers better mortgage rates, lower

purchase prices, and lower down payments, compared to minority

31 Lewis, Davis L. 1976. District of Columbia: A Bicentennial History. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.), 167.

15

16

customers.32 In addition to their higher incomes, these mechanisms made it

easier for whites to become homeowners.

Georgetown as an example of gentrification in NW DC

One example of a NW neighborhood transformed from a blend of race

and income levels to one that is uniform with majority high economic status

and white residents, is Georgetown. At the beginning part of the twentieth

century, Georgetown was home to former slaves and whites who worked in

the industries along the river. Today, it encompasses prime real estate along

the Potomac River. The waterfront is luxury apartments, high-end retail,

upscale restaurants, and a marina for yachts. It is home to Georgetown

University, which is one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education

in the US. It is also one of the most expensive areas to live within the district.

Like other cities in the US, Washington had a transitioning period from

rural to urban. Starting in the 1920’s many residents of the Georgetown area

realized the potential value of the real estate, particularly along the waterfront.

By 1924, they were able to control the development of the community by

successfully lobbying Congress to change the zoning ordinance. The goal

was to prohibit developers from building high-risers.33 During this time,

realtors started marketing Georgetown as the upcoming neighborhood to

32 Ibid, 123 33 Gale, Dennis E. 1987. Washington, D.C.: Inner-City Revitalization and Minority Suburbanization. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 52

17

wealthy whites.34 This was the catalyst for redevelopment of the once

industrial community.

Between the late 1930’s and the early 1950’s, developers continued to

invade and develop the area. This influx of investment in Georgetown began

increasing property values, which in turn increased the property taxes and

prompted early instances of gentrification. The lower income residents could

no longer afford the taxes and tenants could no longer afford the higher rent.

Public policy continued to stimulate gentrification into the 1960’s. The

Old Georgetown Act of 1950 continued to fuel the out-migration of people of

color and lower socioeconomic status. The House Committee on the District

of Columbia initiated the act and Congress passed the act. It placed

Georgetown under the jurisdiction of the US Department of the Interior with the

objectives of preservation and protection of the architecture of places of

historic interest.35 This meant strict regulations and zoning restrictions

regarding building maintenance, which was costly to homeowners.

These policies and regulations forced out families, mostly black, who

did not have the means to comply with the policies.36 The black population

declined from 30% in 1930 to 9% in 1960.37 Similar policies transformed

many of the other neighborhoods along the Potomac River.

34 Lesko, Kathhleen, Valerie Babb and Carroll Gibbs. 1991. Black Georgetown Remembered. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press), 79 35 US Congress House, H.R. 7670 Hearing Before the House. Committee on the District of Columbia. 22 June 1950. Record Group #233 Civil Archives Division, National Archives, Washington, DC. 36 Lesko, Kathhleen, Valerie Babb and Carroll Gibbs. 1991. Black Georgetown Remembered. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press), 97 37 Ibid

18

The SW waterfront example of gentrification

The Potomac River also runs along the SW quadrant of DC. Like

Georgetown, the SW area attracted freed slaves at the end of slavery.

Starting in the 1940’s, revitalization policies and master plans transformed this

neighborhood into the cultural center for DC. These policies come at the price

of relocating residents.

In 1946, the federal government established the Redevelopment Land

Agency (RLA). This agency was primarily responsible for the redevelopment

of the SW waterfront under the Urban Renewal Program. RLA proposed a

master plan to Congress that would effectively force out blacks from the SW

neighborhoods to the Anacostia area.38 The goal was to revitalize the

waterfront. The method was clearance and rebuilding.

In 1954, a development firm presented a plan to turn Southwest in to a

high socioeconomic status residential area surrounded by cultural venues.

They sought to redevelop 330 of 427 acres of land into opera houses, malls,

music halls, and monuments. Private companies in addition to the federal and

district governments financed the $185 million, five-year project.39 The federal

government was heavily involved in land acquisition in order to implement the

plan.40

38 Lewis, Davis L. 1976. District of Columbia: A Bicentennial History. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.),135 39 Ibid p. 135-136 40 Gale, Dennis E. 1987. Washington, DC: Inner-City revitalization and Minority Suburbanization. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 58

19

Anacostia: Dumping and neglect of people

Starting as early as 1930, revitalization in other parts of the city

expelled people of color and low socioeconomic status to neighborhoods

along the Anacostia River. This whole area, including several sub-districts, is

generally called Anacostia. This mass resettlement rapidly transformed this

rural area to into one with high-density housing projects. Through the

seventies, the neighborhoods along the Anacostia River had some of the

fastest growing populations of DC.

When investors began developing along the Potomac River starting as

early as 1920, they blatantly neglected the Anacostia neighborhoods. The

Herald quotes a senator in 1935, stating that there are no millionaires in

Southeast, so it remains neglected. In 1930, an article in The STAR states

that the neglect of Anacostia neighborhoods caused slum conditions.41 In the

1960’s there were as many as seven landfills in the area.42

In the 1950’s, the government changed the zoning laws for Anacostia to

multi-family units only.43 This created new high-density areas along the

Anacostia River, primarily in the form of public housing. As the population

grew, the government did little to upgrade the infrastructure to sustain the new

development.

41 Lewis, Davis L.1976. District of Columbia: A Bicentennial History. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.), 134 42 Williams, Brett. Gentrifying Water and Selling Jim Crow. Urban Anthropology. 2002. Vol 31 num. 1 p.96. 43 Ibid, 96-97

20

Population Change 1950-1960

There was a significant change in the demographics of the population

around each of the rivers between 1950 and 1960. The table shows the

percent change between in this decade for the percent of the non-white

population and the median income.

Table 3: Percent Change 1950-1960 Percent Non-White Median Income44

Anacostia 150.5 35.9 Potomac -57.0 96.7 DC 54.6 24.5

The percent of the non-white residents increased around the Anacostia River

almost three times the percentage it decreased around the Potomac River.

The non-white population in DC increased by 54.6%, while around the

Anacostia River this population increased by 150.5%. In addition, the median

income increased around the Anacostia only about third of what it increased

around the Potomac. The result after one decade is the Anacostia River area

has a large portion of non-white residents, while the Potomac River area has a

significantly smaller portion of non-white residents. Is this polarization of race

and income evident in the decades that follow?

44 I translated the median income for 1950 into 1960 dollars in order to determine the percent change between 1950 and 1960.

CHAPTER 4: SPATIAL COMPARISON OF RACE AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1970-1990

Did the polarization of race and class created by public policy continue

in the latter decades? Using the 1970 and 1980 census, I examined the areas

within one-mile of each river based on race and poverty.45 The one-mile

buffer roughly translates into a 20-minute walk (see Appendix A for the

methodology). The maps are located at the end of this chapter.

Polarization of Race in 1970

In 1970, there is clear polarization of race around each of the rivers.

The majority of the census tracts within one-mile of the Anacostia River are

communities of color. The only tract that is not community of color is the

Boeing Air Force Base census tract. Along the Potomac River, all of the

communities are white.

Spatial Comparison of Race 1980

The polarization of race observed in earlier years still existed in 1980.

Many of the tracts around the Anacostia River retained a significant

percentage of people of color. Even the Boeing Air Force Base increased in

percentage of non-white residents. One tract was majority white in 1970

shows as having no white population in 1980. This tract is federal parkland so

there is no longer a population living there. There are two other census tracts

45 In 1970 and 1980, I use percent of population below poverty as the socioeconomic indicator for each track

21

22

identified as having a negligible population. The Potomac River

neighborhoods remained predominately white between the 1970 and 1980

census.

Percent of Population below Poverty, 1970

One indicator of socioeconomic status is percent of the population

below the poverty level. The communities around the Potomac have a

negligible population below poverty. Overall approximately 20% of population

around the Anacostia River is below poverty. Three tracts at the southernmost

part of the river have between 39 and 69% of the population below poverty.

Three tracts at the northern end have 22 - 38% of the total population living

below poverty.

Percent of Population below Poverty by Race, 1980

The 1980 census gave detailed information about population below

poverty based on race. In the areas surrounding both rivers, there is a

negligible amount of white residents below poverty. Around the Anacostia

River, 6 - 10% and 21 - 50% of total population are non-white residents below

poverty for most of the tracts. There are four tracts where the majority of the

residents are poor people of color.

23

Figure 3: GIS Map of Race, 1970

24

Figure 4: GIS Map of Race, 1980

25

Figure 5: GIS Map of Poverty, 1970

26

Figure 6: GIS Map of Poverty by Race, 1980

CHAPTER 5: CORRELATION OF RACE AND INCOME 1950 AND 1960 As mentioned previously, during the years of 1950 and 1960, public

policy transformed many of the neighborhoods around each of the rivers. The

areas around the Anacostia became increasing people of color and poor. As

this transformation occurs, one has to ask if race or income was driving these

policy decisions. I believe there is a negative correlation between race and

income in neighborhoods in Washington, DC. My hypothesis is as the

proportion of people of color increases the median income decreases.

Therefore, the decisions are harming people because they are poor people of

color.

Anacostia River

In 1950 and 1960, I found there is a negative correlation between race

and income in the census tracts around the Anacostia River. As the percent of

non-white residents increases, the median household income decreases.

Tables 4 and 5 below show the correlation.

Table 4: Correlation of Race and Income, Anacostia River, 195046

% Non-White Median Income % Non-White 1 Median Income -0.756 1 N=15

46 See Appendix B for data tables

27

28

Table 5: Correlation of Race and Income, Anacostia River, 196047

% Non-White Median Income % Non-White 1 Median Income -0.514 1

N=35

Is this correlation statistically significant? The calculated correlation

coefficient (rcalc) for 1950 is -0.756. The critical value (rcrit) is 0.553, based on

a two-tailed p-value and a 95% confidence interval. For 1960, rcrit is less than

0.361. Since the absolute value of rcalc is greater than rcrit, the null hypothesis

is rejected for 1950 and 1960. Therefore, rcalc is statistically significant for both

years.

The next question to answer is whether total population is driving the

model. After doing a correlation analysis for 1950 and 1960, I found there is

not a statistically significant correlation (see Appendix B).

Potomac River

In 1950, I also found a significant negative correlation between race

and income in the census tracts around the Potomac River. For 1960, the

estimated correlation is not significantly different from zero.

Table 6: Correlation of Race and Income, Potomac River, 195048

% Non-white Median Income % Non-white 1 Median Income -0.656 1

N=14

47 See Appendix B for data tables 48 See Appendix B for data tables

29

Table 7: Correlation of Race and Income, Potomac River, 196049

% Non-White Median Income % Non-White 1 Median Income -0.514 1 N=16

The rcrit is 0.532 and 0.576 for 1950 and 1960 respectively. In 1950, the

rcalc is greater than the rcrit. Therefore, it is statistically significant. In 1960, the

rcalc is less than the rcrit, which means the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

For 1960, the correlation coefficient is not statistically significant.

For the Potomac River neighborhoods, I also examined the correlation

of total population and median income. For both years, I found there was no

statistical significance. The rcalc was less than the rcrit, which mean the null

hypothesis cannot be rejected.

49 See Appendix B for data tables

CONCLUSION

This paper resolves around three loosely stated hypotheses: (1) that

environmental inequality lies at the base of some forms of urban development,

(2) that class and race are closely intercorrelated, and (3) that Washington,

DC, with its two prominent rivers, provides a vivid example.

Race and income associate closely in the neighborhoods around each

of the rivers. One cannot isolate race or class when looking at the causes of

environmental burden. The populations harmed by public policy are poor

people of color. Neighborhood revitalization and historic preservation policies

both contributed to the polarization by race and poverty around each river.

Neighborhoods of poverty and color were degraded environmentally. Poor

people moved into the degraded neighborhoods. Poor people and people of

color were excluded from well-tended neighborhoods.

River restoration efforts have been unequal. The federal government

has given significantly greater funding for Potomac River restoration than to

the Anacostia River restoration. The Potomac River is now home to yacht

clubs and high-end restaurants and retail. The Anacostia River remains

begrimed and forgotten.

30

APPENDIX A. USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) TO INVETSIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUALITY

GIS allows for visual representation of the inequalities that exist. This

paper examines spatially the polarization of race and poverty. There were

three basic steps taken to create map layouts to show DC in 1970 and 1980.

1. Data collection 2. Data analysis 3. Map creation and manipulation

Data Collection Most of the data used on this project is from the US Department of

Commerce Census Bureau Geography Division. All of the base maps are

from the Census Bureau. I downloaded the rivers and military base data from

the US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Data Analysis After obtaining the demographic data for 1970 and 1980, it required

some analysis. My analysis looks at race and percent of the population below

poverty level. I only considered these two variables in order to see a change

over time between 1970 and 1980.

I analyzed race as a dichotomy; white versus non-white. I did this for

several reasons. The 1970 census identified the population as non-white,

black, or white. While in the 1980, the census defined race as white, black,

Native American, Asian, Eskimo, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Asian

31

32

Indian, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, Guam, and Samoan. In order to establish

consistency, I defined residents as either white or non-white.

The second reason for this identification system is that the number of

non-whites who are also non-black is a small portion of the population in 1970

and 1980. In addition, the issue of environmental racism is not exclusive to

black communities. As defined earlier, it plagues all communities of color.

In order to create maps that look at non-white versus white, I had to

analyze the data. For each of the categories looking at race, I added a column

for the total non-white population, which was a summation of the Black, Asian,

Native American, and Other populations. I then divided this number by the

total population in order to find the percent non-white.

Map Creation DC is not a state; therefore, it has no counties per se. I used the 1970

and 1980 census tracts shapefiles from the US Census for the base map for

each respective year. Instead of analyzing all of DC, I used a one-mile buffer

around each river. I chose one-mile buffer, because it roughly translates into a

twenty-minute walk. After the buffer was created, the census tract layer was

clipped based on this buffer using the geoprocessing tool in ArcGIS. I used

the new clipped layer to examine race and poverty.

APPENDIX B: USING MICROSOFT EXCEL TO PERFORM A CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Unfortunately, 1950 and 1960 data is not available digitally. In order to

create a buffer, I printed the map for 1950 and selected the census tracts that

were approximately one-mile from each river. For the 1960 data, I used the

same tracts as 1950, which includes the tract changes from 1950 to 1960.

This is why there are more census tracts in the 1960 data tables. In order to

perform the correlation analysis, I used the data analysis tool in Microsoft

Excel. I used a 95% confidence interval and a two-tailed p-value for all the

correlations.

In 1960, the area around the Potomac River had three census tracts

without any data for median income. For the correlation analysis, these data

points were not included.

In order to determine the rcrit, I had to determine the degrees of freedom

(df). This is equal to the number of data points minus 2.

Data Points Degrees of Freedom (df)

Critical r (rcirt)50

Anacostia 1950 15 13 0.553

Anacostia 1960 35 33 <0.361

Potomac 1950 14 12 0.576

Potomac 1960 13 11 0.602

50 Kachigan, Sam Kash. 1991. Multivariate Statistical Analysis. (New York: Radius Press).

33

34

For the correlation analysis, I used median income and the non-white

population as a percent of the total population. To ensure that total population

did not drive the model, I also did a correlation analysis using total population

and median income. I found the correlation of total population and median

income is not statistically significant.

Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers, 1950 and 1960 For the final analysis I examined the dataset for the Potomac and

Anacostia Rivers together for 1950 and 1960. In 1950, there is a statistically

significant negative correlation between percent non-white and income. For

1960, there is a weak negative correlation that is statistically significant.

Table 8: Race and Income, Potomac & Anacostia River, 1950 Non-White* Median Income

Non-White* 1 Median Income -0.647 1 N=29 rcric=0.361

Table 9: Race and Income, Anacostia & Potomac River, 1960 Non-White Median Income

Non-White 1 Median Income -0.451 1 N=48 rcric <0.288

35

1950 Data for the Census Tracts around the Anacostia River51 Percent of Total

Census Tract White

Non-white* Black

Total Residents

Median Income White

Non-White* Black

63 2250 3205 3174 5455 1924 41.2 58.8 58.19 64 179 4413 4410 4592 2506 3.9 96.1 96.04 68 6390 3971 3935 10361 3039 61.7 38.3 37.98 69 2991 2196 2173 5187 2924 57.7 42.3 41.89 71 3203 1012 997 4215 2935 76.0 24.0 23.65 72 696 6062 6039 6758 2234 10.3 89.7 89.36 73 33905 2721 2550 36626 3385 92.6 7.4 6.96 74 5057 10210 10180 15267 2489 33.1 66.9 66.68 75 7404 868 868 8272 3941 89.5 10.5 10.49 76 18906 99 61 19005 4435 99.5 0.5 0.32 77 20685 8861 8832 29546 3946 70.0 30.0 29.89 78 8785 27838 27781 36623 3011 24.0 76.0 75.86 79 4948 6046 6022 10994 2995 45.0 55.0 54.78 89 2882 7929 7920 10811 3218 26.7 73.3 73.26 90 2251 581 572 2832 3765 79.5 20.5 20.20

Total 120532 86012 85514 206544 3116 58.4 41.6 41.40

1950 Data for the Census Tracts around the Potomac River52 Percent of Total

Census Tract White

Non-white* Black

Total Residents

Median Income White

Non-white* Black

1 6366 1292 1265 7658 3869 83.1 16.9 16.5 2 6248 623 576 6871 1495 90.9 9.1 8.4 3 7087 65 53 7152 4131 99.1 0.9 0.7 4 1412 142 93 1554 3833 90.9 9.1 6.0 7 6713 142 105 6855 4858 97.9 2.1 1.5 8 5204 209 177 5413 4472 96.1 3.9 3.3 9 5295 283 276 5578 5065 94.9 5.1 4.9

10 11378 78 47 11456 4902 99.3 0.7 0.4 41 4271 256 232 4527 3210 94.3 5.7 5.1 54 5257 1798 1752 7055 3000 74.5 25.5 24.8 55 5241 3457 3409 8698 2516 60.3 39.7 39.2 56 1735 4130 4083 5865 2053 29.6 70.4 69.6 57 8535 1350 1291 9885 3053 86.3 13.7 13.1 62 2670 1770 1752 4440 2490 60.1 39.9 39.5

Total 77412 15595 15111 93007 3496 83.2 16.8 16.2

51 U.S. Census Bureau. 1952. 1950 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, Washington, DC. HA 201-P82 Chapter 59 Washington: The Bureau. 52 Ibid

36

1960 Data for the Census Tracts around the Anacostia River53 Percent of Total Census Tract White

Non-White* Black Total

Median Income White

Non-white* Black

63 829 17 1514 2360 3484 35.1 0.7 64.264 42 2 3218 3262 2912 1.3 0.1 98.768 2010 47 8131 10188 5114 19.7 0.5 79.869 914 12 3971 4897 4459 18.7 0.2 81.171 1061 32 2936 4029 4731 26.3 0.8 72.972 513 29 5009 5551 2998 9.2 0.5 90.2

73.1 4195 281 337 4813 5250 87.2 5.8 7.073.2 5461 46 38 5545 5902 98.5 0.8 0.773.3 4342 76 63 4481 6138 96.9 1.7 1.473.4 4652 111 498 5261 5246 88.4 2.1 9.573.5 7007 141 1901 9049 5100 77.4 1.6 21.073.6 6511 76 63 6650 6386 97.9 1.1 0.973.7 6285 48 39 6372 6474 98.6 0.8 0.673.8 358 6 680 1044 0 34.3 0.6 65.174.1 1391 42 4963 6396 3430 21.7 0.7 77.674.2 949 15 5228 6192 5238 15.3 0.2 84.474.3 166 15 12405 12586 5214 1.3 0.1 98.6

75 6449 68 2700 9217 5583 70.0 0.7 29.376.1 5865 46 23 5934 6467 98.8 0.8 0.476.2 6515 24 28 6567 7777 99.2 0.4 0.476.3 5314 20 7 5341 7955 99.5 0.4 0.177.1 5165 8 1045 6218 5794 83.1 0.1 16.877.2 4741 34 1462 6237 7992 76.0 0.5 23.477.3 2910 54 3456 6420 5227 45.3 0.8 53.877.4 619 55 10727 11401 5685 5.4 0.5 94.177.5 18 9 6311 6338 5150 0.3 0.1 99.678.1 155 5 7951 8111 3937 1.9 0.1 98.078.2 303 19 6329 6651 6597 4.6 0.3 95.278.3 10 8 6011 6029 4570 0.2 0.1 99.778.4 3 5 4726 4734 4538 0.1 0.1 99.878.5 16 8 8256 8280 5348 0.2 0.1 99.778.6 11 8 10036 10055 4322 0.1 0.1 99.8

79 252 17 9292 9561 4718 2.6 0.2 97.289 101 3 10617 10721 4944 0.9 0.0 99.090 1321 83 5305 6709 6618 19.7 1.2 79.1

Total 86454 1470 145276 233200 5180 37.1 0.6 62.3

53 U.S. Census Bureau. 1962. 1960 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, Washington, DC. HA 201-P822. Washington: The Bureau.

37

1960 Data for the Census Tracts around the Potomac River54 Percent of Total Census Tract White

Non-white* Black Total

Median Income White

Non-white* Black

1 5583 59 321 5963 11384 93.6 1.0 5.42 5594 69 60 5723 9780 97.7 1.2 1.03 6303 78 34 6415 8649 98.3 1.2 0.54 1192 30 58 1280 19815 93.1 2.3 4.57 8330 97 121 8548 10835 97.4 1.1 1.48 6073 53 109 6235 13756 97.4 0.9 1.79 6533 53 129 6715 14269 97.3 0.8 1.9

10 11554 95 49 11698 11096 98.8 0.8 0.441 3209 80 141 3430 11967 93.6 2.3 4.1

54.001 2030 76 518 2624 5629 77.4 2.9 19.754.002 758 11 62 831 0 91.2 1.3 7.5

55 4046 115 2021 6182 4804 65.4 1.9 32.756 3082 63 651 3796 7855 81.2 1.7 17.1

57.001 5102 57 221 5380 0 94.8 1.1 4.157.002 1376 11 17 1404 4786 98.0 0.8 1.2

62 49 0 50 99 0 49.5 0.0 50.5Total 70814 947 4562 76323 8414 92.8 1.2 6.0

54 Ibid

38

Total Population versus Median Income

1950 Anacostia River

Median Income Total Residents

Median Income 1 Total Residents 0.327117122 1

rcrit =0.553, the null hypothesis is accepted.

1950 Potomac River

Median Income Total Residents

Median Income 1 Total Residents 0.083823643 1

rcrit =0.576, the null hypothesis is accepted.

1960 Anacostia River

Median Income Total Residents

Median Income 1 Total Residents 0.287371171 1

rcrit < 0.361, the null hypothesis is accepted.

1960 Potomac River

Median Income Total Residents

Median Income 1 Total Residents 0.338585586 1

rcrit = 0.497, the null hypothesis is accepted.

BIBLIOGRPAHY American Rivers. Most Endangered Rivers 1988-2001.

<http://www.amrivers.org/mostendangered/riverlist.htm> [assessed 1 May 2002].

Barefoot, Cody. Destination: Washington, DC. Attaché. September 2003. Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai.1992. Race and Incidence of Environmental

Hazards. (San Francisco, CA: Westview Press). Bullard, Robert. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental

Quality. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press). Committee on Environmental Justice. 1999. Toward Environmental Justice.

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press). District of Columbia Department of Health. Environmental Health

Administration, Water Quality Division, The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment Executive Summary, 2000

District of Columbia Department of Health. Fisheries and Wildlife. Public

Health Advisory.<http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/fisheries_wildlife/licensing_phealthadvisory.shtm> [assessed 25 March 2003].

Foreman, Christopher Jr. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental

Justice. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press). Friends of the Earth. Anacostia River TMDL Briefs: Friends of the Earth v.

USEPA, D.C. Cir. 02-1123 and 02-1124 Friends of the Earth. 2002. Environmentalist Seek Court’s Help to Clean Up

Anacostia River. November.

39

40

<http://www.foe.org/new/releases/1102anaco stpr.html> [assessed 25 March 2003].

Gale, Dennis E. 1987. Washington, D.C.: Inner-City Revitalization and Minority

Suburbanization. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). Kachigan, Sam Kash. 1991. Multivariate Statistical Analysis. (New York:

Radius Press). Land Loss Prevention Project. September 2003. <http://www.landloss.org/

Commonly%20Used%20Environmental%20Justice%20Definitions.htm> [assessed 12 March 2000].

Lesko, Kathhleen, Valerie Babb and Carroll Gibbs. 1991. Black Georgetown

Remembered. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press). Lewis, Davis L. 1976. District of Columbia: A Bicentennial History. (New York:

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.). Loeb, Vernon. Currents of Change. The Washington Post. 1 December 1996. Miller, Char and Hal Rothman.1997. Out of the Woods. (Pittsburgh: University

of Pittsburgh Press). Natural Resources Defense Council. 2002. Cleaning Up the Anacostia River.

<http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/fanacost.asp> [assessed 9 October 2003].

Pennsylvania Environmental Network. Environmental Racism in Chestertown.

<http://penweb.org/Chester>. [assessed 25 March 2000]. The Sustainable Washington Alliance. 2001. Do You Know? Healthy Rivers

and You. <http://www.swampnet.org/swehag/c.html> [assessed 15 September 2003].

41

US Environmental Protection Agency. What is the American Heritage Initaitve? American Heritage Rivers. <http://www.epa.gov/ rivers/eo13061.html>. [assessed 23 March 2003]

U.S. Census Bureau. 1952. 1950 Census of Population and Housing, Census

Tracts, Washington, DC. HA 201-P82 Chapter 59 Washington: The Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1962. 1960 Census of Population and Housing, Census

Tracts, Washington, DC. HA 201-P822. Washington: The Bureau. US Congress House, H.R. 7670 Hearing Before the House. Committee on the

District of Columbia. 22 June 1950. Record Group #233 Civil Archives Division, National Archives, Washington, DC.

Wennersten, John R. 2003. The Anacostia: Restoring a Ruined River. The

Chesapeake Quarterly Online. Vol 2. Num. 2. <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CQ/V02N2/main.html> [assessed 9 October 2003]

Westra, Laura and Peter S. Wenz. 1995. Faces of Environmental Racism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.).

Williams, Brett. Gentrifying Water and Selling Jim Crow. Urban Anthropology.

2002. Vol 31 num. 1 p.96. Williams, Christopher. 1998. Environmental Victims. (London, England:

Earthscan Publications Ltd).