Billions of dollars in California’s budget hinge on a single tool: CalEnviroScreen, a pollution tracker designed to identify the state’s most burdened communities. But here’s where it gets controversial: while this tool has already directed massive funding to these areas, critics argue it’s still missing the mark for some of the most vulnerable neighborhoods.
Imagine a young athlete playing soccer on a field surrounded by warehouses and smog—a scene all too common in places like Jurupa Valley. This isn’t just a picture; it’s a stark reminder of the environmental injustices many Californians face daily. CalEnviroScreen aims to address these disparities, but its latest update has reignited a long-standing debate: are we truly reaching everyone who needs help?
The Latest Update: Progress or More of the Same?
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has rolled out the fifth update to CalEnviroScreen, developed in collaboration with eight community organizations, including the Environmental Health Coalition and UNIDOS Network. This version introduces two new indicators: diabetes prevalence, recognizing the heightened vulnerability of those with diabetes to air pollution, and small air toxic sites, targeting risks from sources like urban oil wells and dry cleaners. Additionally, the tool now includes improved data on children’s blood lead levels, among its 21 total indicators. Public feedback sessions are underway, with a final version expected this summer.
‘It’s a constant work in progress,’ said Álvaro Alvarado, OEHHA’s supervising toxicologist, emphasizing the agency’s commitment to incorporating input from stakeholders, community groups, academics, and government agencies. ‘We’re always looking for new layers to better understand pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities.’
By law, at least 25% of California’s cap-and-invest funds—generated from greenhouse gas auctions—must go to the most disadvantaged communities. Since 2014, CalEnviroScreen has been the state’s go-to tool for identifying these areas, focusing on the top 25% of census tracts. Laura August, OEHHA’s environmental program manager, notes that the update doesn’t drastically alter which communities are flagged as most polluted, though some regions, like the Bay Area and Central Valley, saw slight ranking decreases. Approximately 80% of previously designated disadvantaged communities remain unchanged.
The Tool’s Impact—and Its Gaps
Since 2015, disadvantaged communities have received at least $5.8 billion in cap-and-invest funds, a testament to the tool’s importance. Yet, environmental advocates argue it’s still incomplete. Rebecca Overmyer-Velazquez, a coordinator for the Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights, points out the need for ‘ground-truthing’—literally walking neighborhoods to identify all pollution sources and stressors, from heat islands to lack of tree cover. Critics also call for additional indicators, such as tree canopy coverage and wildfire smoke data.
State officials acknowledge these gaps and plan to incorporate climate data and information on pollution magnets, like warehouses, in future updates. But the question remains: is the tool’s design itself creating blind spots?
A 2024 study by Johns Hopkins University researchers found that CalEnviroScreen 4.0 was subjective enough to potentially exclude certain communities from billions in funding. ‘Every choice made in designing the model implicitly decides who gets funding and who doesn’t,’ said Benjamin Huynh, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. For instance, the tool uses emergency room visits for asthma as an indicator of air pollution sensitivity, but immigrants and others may avoid ERs or doctors altogether, skewing the data.
OEHHA defends its methodology, arguing that it prioritizes generalizability and utilization without sacrificing accuracy. But advocates counter that the real issue isn’t just the data—it’s how the tool is used. CalEnviroScreen was born out of 1990s environmental justice advocacy, but activists like Bradley Angel of Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice argue that the state isn’t leveraging it aggressively enough. ‘Communities weren’t fighting for dollar signs,’ Angel said. ‘They were fighting to protect our health.’
Lessons from Beyond California
California isn’t alone in this struggle. New Jersey, inspired by CalEnviroScreen, has taken a bolder approach. Two years ago, the state began requiring polluting facilities to analyze cumulative impacts using its own tool. If a facility can’t avoid harming overburdened communities, regulators must deny its permit. ‘The tool is just a tool,’ said Caroline Farrell of Golden Gate University’s Environmental Law and Justice Clinic. ‘It’s how you use it that matters.’
The Bigger Question: Are We Doing Enough?
As California continues to refine CalEnviroScreen, the debate rages on. Is this tool truly transformative, or is it merely a Band-Aid on a much larger wound? And this is the part most people miss: even with billions allocated, the health and well-being of countless Californians remain at stake.
What do you think? Is CalEnviroScreen a step in the right direction, or does it fall short of addressing the root causes of environmental injustice? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s keep this conversation going.
