Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cloe20

Download by: [Kevin Lynn] Date: 21 June 2016, At: 14:38

Local EnvironmentThe International Journal of Justice and Sustainability

ISSN: 1354-9839 (Print) 1469-6711 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Rising recreancy: flood control and communityrelocation in Houston, TX, from an environmentaljustice perspective

Kevin Lynn

To cite this article: Kevin Lynn (2016): Rising recreancy: flood control and communityrelocation in Houston, TX, from an environmental justice perspective, Local Environment

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1195802

Published online: 21 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Rising recreancy: flood control and community relocation inHouston, TX, from an environmental justice perspectiveKevin Lynn

Department of Sociology, Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

ABSTRACTThis article looks at issues of recreancy, environmental justice, andrelocation as they relate to a flood control infrastructure project in innercity Houston. The main research questions were “What forms wouldrecreancy take?” and “Can a project be environmentally just if recreancyis present?” Through the structural coding of 53 semi-structuredinterviews, recreancy was found even in a project where the sponsorsused community cohesion as a guideline. This article illuminates thedifficulties flood control project engineers face when working in localcommunities and argues that engineering issues are also social issues.Further, the relocatees within this flood control project voice some ofthe same concerns experienced by people relocated in other involuntaryinfrastructure development projects. The case outlined in this articlecould be used to better help those involuntarily relocated for flood control.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 5 February 2016Accepted 23 May 2016

KEYWORDSEnvironmental justice;executive order 12898;flooding; Houston; TX;recreancy

1. Introduction

There is by now a well-established literature under the banner of environmental justice (EJ) that hasdocumented the disproportionate exposure of low-income and minority communities to variousenvironmental hazards (GAO 1983, United Church of Christ 1987, Bullard 1990). The EJ literaturehas expanded over time, methodologically by considering distance effects instead of arealapproaches, as well as substantively by recognising a growing suite of hazard types (Dixon andRamutsindela 2006, Harper et al. 2009, Maantay and Maroko 2009, Wilson et al. 2010, Bullard andWright 2012, Douglas et al. 2012). In parallel to the analyses of the existence of disproportionateexposure are publications on EJ movements and the outcomes of various tactics involving litigation,collective action, and others (Čapek 1993, Timmons Roberts and Toffolon-Weiss 2001).

Also stemming from all such work on EJ is the concern that affected communities possess or gainthe ability to reduce or otherwise avoid exposure to environmental hazards. Inasmuch as thereduction in the sources of hazards may be especially difficult, alternatives such as relocationbecome important options. The prospect of relocation, however, raises its own suite of issues. Forone thing, vulnerable communities must depend upon public sector agencies and their employeesfor relocation. This raises questions about agency commitment to relocation and respect for theneeds of community residents. This dependency may result in situations where public sectoragencies and employees are at odds with communities that need assistance.

Here the sociological concept of recreancy (Freudenburg 1993), applied previously to topicsrelated to pollution, finds new currency with regard to relocation. Recreancy arises when it is believedthat institutional actors (including public sector agencies and their employees) are not carrying outtheir responsibilities at a level commensurate with the level of societal trust the institutional actors

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Kevin Lynn kevinlynn@ufl.edu

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1195802

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

possess (Freudenburg 1993). Recreancy can be viewed as arising in the absence of EJ, or in therecreant implementation of projects intended to bring about EJ. While recreancy has been studiedin various types of cases, there remains a need to consider recreancy in the planning and implemen-tation of structural and non-structural flood mitigation efforts, including community relocation. Relo-cation is highly disruptive to communities and can itself constitute a form of EJ. Of course, relocationto remove a community from an environmental risk can serve justice, but then questions arise aboutproject implementation and whether that adequately addresses community needs.

This article therefore takes up the case of a vulnerable minority community facing various environ-mental hazards, typical in the EJ literature, and focuses on relocation due to a flood control project. Icentre my inquiry on the issue of the community’s relationship with the agency managing the relo-cation. Because the community is dependent on the agency, I raise the question of agency recreancyand the possible forms it may take. A key political issue in the relationship of the agency with thecommunity is that only some residents must be relocated to implement the project. This raises par-ticular issues tied to agency decision-making and communication with the community.

I report findings from a qualitative inquiry on community perceptions of agency commitment torelocation and recreancy. While the flood control project had the explicit goal of protecting the com-munity from flooding, the relocation component revealed elements of recreancy by the responsibleagency in the eyes of many community members. The findings show that recreancy may arise whenthere is disagreement between public agency officials and affected community residents on floodrisk measurement; individual homeowners may disagree with public officials on how often their par-ticular home floods. Affected community members may question whether a flood control infrastruc-ture project is fair and whether it will be effective if undertaken. The community may question theneed for any level of relocation if a project is being pursued to mitigate flood risk. Flood control infra-structure planning processes that happen over extended time periods may seem unimportant tocommunity members, or perhaps the project should have been planned and implemented sooner.I conclude the article with the discussion of the implications for the study of relocation and additionalapplications of the concept of recreancy in the study of relocation.

This article addresses repetitive flood risks that result in emergency level responses from localpublic safety officials, whereas Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophe. While emergency level crisesdo not make the national or international news, emergency level crises happen more often andare therefore worthy of study. Also, while this article looks at the effect of a flood infrastructureproject on a low-income African-American and Latino community, this article does not look at EJfrom a social movement perspective but from the perspective of evaluating the social outcomesof a project based on Executive Order 12898 (the EJ executive order that President Bill Clintonsigned in 1994). Finally, civil engineers and their actions make up part of the basis for this article.The point is not to be critical of them and their work, but to show how difficult their work is andhow outcomes may not please everyone even when projects are undertaken with the best ofintentions.

2. Literature review

2.1. EJ and flood risk

EJ has three manifestations based on the idea that minority communities and low-income commu-nities everywhere suffer from disproportionate environmental risk: (1) EJ is a worldwide social move-ment, (2) it is a lens for both qualitative and quantitative social science research, and (3) it is aguidance tool in the USA (enabled through Executive Order 12898) for federal agencies when creat-ing and implementing federal policy, programs, and projects. While flooding is a relatively recent focusfor EJ scholars, its coverage mirrors the panoply of ways EJ scholars cover technology risks (failedinfrastructure) and the relief from those risks. There have been efforts made to use an EJ lens onflooding risks in Europe (Harper et al. 2009, Walker and Burningham 2011) and South Africa (Dixon

2 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

and Ramutsindela 2006). Finally, there is EJ research into the best ways to map socially vulnerablecommunities subject to flood risk (Maantay and Maroko 2009).

In the USA, sociology’s father of EJ has engaged with justice issues pertaining to flood risk andflood relief throughout his academic career (Bullard 1987, Bullard and Wright 2012). Indeed,Bullard and others have argued that EJ related to flooding may be exacerbated if affected commu-nities do not have appropriate and sanitary housing not made safe from flood risk (Bullard 2006,Blakely 2011). Minority communities may also be forced to bear the brunt of the disposal and incin-eration of flood-damaged building materials (Bullard 1987, Bullard and Wright 2012). Post-floodrebuilding that is based on unrealistically expensive building standards will harm householdswithout economic resources (Bullard 2006, Blakely 2011). Communities that are subject to floodrisk may not be involved in the planning and preparation necessary for emergency situations(Douglas et al. 2012).

2.2. EJ and recreancy

According to earlier research, race and class do not correlate strongly with risk perception (Freuden-burg 1993); but recent research shows strong correlations between race, class, and recreancy (Gordon2010). EJ research shows that low-income communities and minority communities are more likely tobe subject to flood risk, and recreancy research shows us that these same communities are morelikely to experience recreancy for both risk management and crisis response mechanisms.

Recreancy results when outsider public agencies try to impose solutions on a particular local areawithout local area insider input (Suttmeier 2011). Communication may also be an issue if it is felt thatimportant information is not being disclosed to an inquiring public or if information is poorly com-municated (Gordon 2010). When dealing with crisis prevention and relief for groups who historically(and with good reason) do not trust those who are perceived to be in power (public agency employ-ees), previously existing recreancy may be exacerbated.

The EJ literature has shown that it is low-income minority communities who are likely to live inareas with flood risk. These households are also the most likely to be least informed about floodrisk in Harris County, TX (Zhang 2010). Recreancy may also arise from public agency land-usedecisions that allowed for the construction of homes in a floodplain in the first place as well as allow-ing the most vulnerable households to live in flood-prone areas.

Recreancy may arise if those subject to the EJ of living in flood-prone areas are then not allowed toparticipate in flood protection and relief planning processes (Dixon and Ramutsindela 2006, Douglaset al. 2012). Communities may distrust the efforts of public agencies when the agencies underesti-mate flood risk for EJ communities and fail to plan for or accumulate the resources necessary forflood relief (Maantay and Maroko 2009). EJ and recreancy result when flooding happens acrossmany communities, but low-income and minority communities must bear the negative elementsof public agency flood relief efforts more than majority communities (Bullard 1987, Bullard 1990,Bullard 2006, Blakely 2011, Bullard and Wright 2012).

2.3. Flood relief and recreancy

The various issues of EJ related to flooding raise issues of flood control and flood relief. A basic tenetof EJ is all communities have their merits and should be able to determine their own futures. Injus-tices arise when responses to risks result in unfairness. The presence of technical competence and theability to sufficiently communicate with an affected community do not go hand in hand. Misinforma-tion and the suppression of information may lead to an affected community being unable to suffi-ciently plan for itself or fully participate in planning processes undertaken for that community’sfuture. The public may trust the technical competence of crisis management experts, but this maynot lead to a complete trust. The public may feel misinformed and that important information has

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

been suppressed to appease those in power. This results in distrust of plans to address the relevantrisk (Gordon 2010).

Communities are dependent upon public agencies for environmental risk mitigation. However,the trust of communities in relevant public sector agencies may be hindered for various reasons.One instance of mistrust arises when an agency’s perception of a particular risk differs from a com-munity’s perception of the same risk. Another is if the community in question believes the publicagency utilises inadequate risk measurement tools. A third impediment appears if the agency see-mingly favours the actor engaging in a noxious activity over the community exposed to thenoxious activity. A fourth occurs if risk mitigation plans developed by public agencies prioritisecost and expediency concerns over community needs. Finally, trust is damaged if different commu-nities with exposure to the same risk are subject to highly different risk mitigation plans and projects.

In all such cases, community perceptions of recreancy on the part of public agencies result in mis-trust. If recreancy is present, it may be difficult to argue that any work product of the public sectoragency in question (risk measurement, regulation of noxious activity, and risk mitigation plans andprojects) promotes EJ, especially if the work product is based on assumptions not shared with thecommunity in question.

Recreancy has social consequences including loss of ontological security, the emergence of cor-rosive communities, and diminished social capital. A lack of reliability in organisations and institutionsleads to changes in lifescapes and organisations, and institutions charged with protecting the quo-tidian public will be found wanting if crisis response and risk management plans seem to favour onegroup over another (Ritchie et al. 2013).

One can imagine two general types of scenarios involving community relocation away from aflood hazard where EJ and recreancy become pre-eminent. The first scenario is where a communityfights for relocation, but public agencies do not want to assume the costs and liabilities involved. Thesecond scenario is where public agencies opt for relocation, but communities question that optionand resist relocation, instead arguing that agencies should work to mitigate the flood hazard.Given these possibilities, recreancy may arise in different ways.

Recreancy can result in both scenarios if a relocation is not done with the concerns of relocatees inmind (Bullard and Johnson 2000), or when public agencies that did not use regulatory powers toprevent a noxious activity then refuse to relocate low-income minority communities away fromharm (Čapek 1993, Timmons Roberts and Toffolon-Weiss 2001, Fletcher 2002).

These two cases leave open questions pertaining to the relocation of only a portion of a commu-nity. This constitutes a hybrid third scenario, where there is public agency investment in flood control,but those investments require that some residents will be relocated, but not all. In the hybrid thirdcase, there is the possibility that both of the aforementioned forms of recreancy will arise. That is,not only will public agencies impose relocation on some residents, but they will also deny other resi-dents the option to relocate, even if they wish to do so. Further, there is the possibility of additionalforms of recreancy, such as inadequate communication, which can be complicated by miscommuni-cation if residents disagree among themselves over the attractiveness of relocation. This article takesup the third type of case.

3. Study case

The Kashmere Gardens neighbourhood of Houston, Texas, has a long history of flooding and relateddamages. Flat topography and impervious cover from urban development cause the flooding pro-blems. Recent major flooding events include Tropical Storm Allison (June 5–10, 2001) duringwhich parts of the greater Houston area received 14 inches of rain. Approximately 76,000 residentsof the Hunting Bayou watershed, where Kashmere Gardens is located, experienced flooding in theirhomes. Hurricane Ike (September 13, 2008) brought 13 inches of rain to some parts of greaterHouston and also resulted in flooding Kashmere Gardens. During July 11–13, 2012, Harris County,TX, received between 10 and 14 inches of rain, with Hunting Bayou rainfall gauges recording 13

4 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

inches of rain. Other documented significant flooding events happened in 1979, 1980, 1983, 1989,1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2006, and 2007. Structural inundation during these events ranged fromone to four feet. All affected Kashmere Gardens (Aecom 2014a).

Kashmere Gardens is not only prone to flooding, it is a largely minority community. When consid-ering infrastructure projects to address natural risks, civil engineers assess the social vulnerability of athreatened community by looking at its racial make-up, its income, its educational attainment, and itsdependent populations (Bedient 2012). Kashmere Gardens is much more socially vulnerable com-pared to Houston as a whole as shown in Table 1. Compared to greater Houston, KashmereGardens has proportionally more minorities, a lower median household income, a lower highschool graduation rate, and more young and old residents.

Because of the significant flood risk, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is developingProject Hunting to reduce flooding in the Hunting Bayou watershed. Project Hunting is a floodcontrol infrastructure project that has two main purposes. The project will protect important trans-portation infrastructure in the Hunting Bayou watershed necessary for hurricane evacuation andemergency response efforts by public safety agencies. The project will also protect a vulnerablepopulation, the residents of Kashmere Gardens, which has neither had the means to quickly get tosafety in the event of a significant flood nor the resources to restore homes and householdsdamaged during floods. This project has the explicit goal of protecting a low socio-economicstatus community under the auspices of Executive Order 12898.

Given these considerations, Project Hunting is an interesting case for the study of EJ andrecreancy. On the one hand, the focus on protecting vulnerable populations which are also at riskof flooding is eminently consistent with EJ. Flood control may not remove all of the environmentalrisks facing the residents of Kashmere Gardens, but it does remove a serious hazard with known econ-omic consequences. That said, there remains the potential for recreancy insofar that there are com-plications to project implementation, and Project Hunting involves relocation.

The complications to Kashmere Gardens stem from the fact that HCFCD’s mandate is on floodcontrol, and relies in part on federal partners and funding, which must all be coordinated.

HCFCD is a local partner of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and HCFCD projects receivematching funds from the federal government. Project Hunting involves significant construction,including the deepening and widening of Hunting Bayou, along with bridge modifications, andthe construction of a 40-acre flood water detention basin. Project Hunting will cost approximately$176 million.

Under Project Hunting, there will also be approximately 80 voluntary and involuntary householdrelocations. To be sure, there are EJ concerns as outlined in HCFCD project documents. Such concernsunderscore the importance of the idea of community cohesion and community participation inproject planning. HCFCD held numerous meetings with Kashmere Gardens residents to discuss relo-cation. In those meetings, residents made clear they wanted to pursue a project plan that would mini-mise involuntary household relocations, especially for the elderly and low-income communityhouseholds. In addition to community meetings, there were door-to-door plan communications,and also the publication of a flood control plan newsletter called Flow.

Table 1. Race-ethnic and socio-economic comparisons of Houston to Kashmere Gardens.

Houston Kashmere Gardens

Percentage African American 24% 77%Percentage Latino 44% 21%Percentage White 26% 0.4%Median household income $45,000 $22,000At least a high school graduate 75.4% 52%Percentage under age 18 27% 30%Percentage over age 64 10% 16%

Source: City of Houston Planning and Development Department Public Policy Division (2010).

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

HCFCD considered five alternatives in the design of Project Hunting, and opted for a design withselective relocation. Design selection criteria included the best benefit–cost ratio, accounting for eco-logical concerns, and recognising EJ concerns. The first alternative called for concrete channelisationof much of Hunting Bayou, but concrete channelisation currently does not have many supporters inthe Houston area. The second alternative called for the acquisition and demolition of 974 structuresin the floodplain and their associated household relocations. This was deemed to be too detrimentalto community cohesion. The third alternative called for flood proofing or raising these same struc-tures, but there was a concern that doing so would cause a false sense of security in residentswho would be better off evacuating during extreme weather events. The fourth alternative calledfor doing nothing, leaving the Kashmere Gardens, neighbouring communities, and important trans-portation infrastructure vulnerable to flooding (Aecom 2014b). In the end, HCFCD settled on thedesign option that improved flood control, while minimising risks to and relocations of residents.

The decision to include relocations nonetheless begs questions about the process by whichHCFCD engaged the community of Kashmere Gardens. While Project Hunting was first announcedin 1990, the first general public meeting did not take place until 1998. There were eight public meet-ings from June 11, 1998, to November 10, 2007. There were also four meetings with communityorganisations from 2006 to 2008. The majority of post-2007 community organisation meetingshave been held with the Kashmere Gardens Super Neighborhood Council (KGSNC), which is a Cityof Houston Geographically Designated Area Council whose members meet to address communityconcerns. HCFCD met with KGSNC 23 times between August 2006 and March 2014 (Aecom 2014c).

HCFCD also created a Citizen Advisory Committee specifically for Project Hunting. This committeehad representatives from the City of Houston Parks Department, the Bayou Preservation Association(Houston’s leading civil society bayou advocate), Harris County Board of Commissioners members,business owners, and political representatives from the cities of Galena Park and Jacinto City asthe Hunting Bayou watershed spread into those cities as well as Houston. Hence while communityoutreach started slowly, there were numerous meetings between HCFCD and Kashmere Gardens resi-dents and representatives. All community meetings were coordinated by the HCFCD, local partner ofthe USACE. English to Spanish translators were made available in all meetings. In addition to fallingunder the auspices of Executive Order 12898, Project Hunting also falls under the limited English pro-ficiency Executive Order 13166 (Aecom 2014c). USACE project documents state that there were noexpressions of opposition to Project Hunting at any HCFCD sponsored meeting.

The many public and community meetings and the extensive coordination with participating gov-ernmental agencies suggest a reasonably transparent planning process for the case of ProjectHunting. A plan to alter a body of water that flows through multiple jurisdictions will require theinput of public sector officials of those jurisdictions. If it is assumed the officials truly represent thepublic, one could assume these officials can be trusted. One would also rightly be concerned ifthere was not sufficient public agency coordination concerning Project Hunting. HCFCD project man-agers contacted numerous federal, state, and local agencies to solicit their input. However, the incor-poration of selective relocation in the design adopted for Project Hunting was a point of concern forKashmere Gardens residents. While Project Hunting’s stated purpose was flood control to protect vul-nerable populations, and while HCFCD made a good faith effort to engage the communities to beaffected by the project, there is nonetheless reason to believe that the inclusion of relocationsagainst community preferences would lead to mistrust and thus recreancy. The question at handthus becomes one of whether residents of Kashmere Gardens perceived recreancy on the part ofHCFCD with regard to the relocations, and if so, what forms the recreancy took in a case of selectiverelocations.

4. Methodology

I undertook a qualitative research approach for a number of reasons. Quantitative research hasalready been done in the geographic area on which I focus (Zhang 2010) and I wanted to add to

6 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

that with in-depth qualitative research. My research focuses on resident perceptions of a flood controlproject, focusing on whether residents perceived recreancy on the part of the governmental agenciesresponsible for the project. On the one hand, I paid attention to resident perspectives on flood risk asit squares up against the meaning of community. In that context, I sought to understand relocation asthe result of flood control infrastructure and in terms of the implications for community cohesion.With the tensions among those key themes in mind, I focused on resident views on how theHCFCD chose to manage relocation and whether residents felt there were manifestations ofagency recreancy.

Potential interviewees were identified through my attendance at weekly Bible studies at localchurches, through working at a local library branch, and through repeated visits to a senior centreand community centre. After preliminary conversations, I identified 10 people who served as myinitial interviewees. After these 10 interviews were completed, I employed a snowball sampling tech-nique (Goodman 1961) to identify additional interviewees. Snowball sampling is non-probabilisticbut is appropriate when there is no sampling list, especially in networks with dense ties amongmembers. The importance of social ties in Kashmere Gardens, as among kin and church members,thus made snowball sampling eminently appropriate. I conducted a total of 53 interviews in total.Among those, I spoke with 14 homeowners in favour of being relocated, 17 who were not infavour of being relocated, and 22 who were not subject to any relocation.

The majority of the interviewees were female (56%), ranged in age from 31 to 75 years, and all butsix were homeowners. Their residency in the neighbourhood ranged from 12 to 46 years. AfricanAmericans made up 90.6% of the interviewees and the remaining 9.4% were Latinos.

With these interviewees, I conducted semi-structured interviews. I used a pre-written list of ques-tions to encourage interviewees to speak without having to provide perceptions of their communityand Project Hunting starting off cold. Interviewees were asked open-ended questions around issuesof perceptions of flood risk, communication with HCFCD, and trust of HCFCD with regard to reloca-tion. Differing perceptions of risk will influence whether a person thinks a risk mitigation effort such asProject Hunting is necessary. If relocation is part of the risk mitigation, it too will be challenged if ahousehold does not feel there is sufficient risk to merit relocation. If communication with the govern-mental agency in charge of ensuring community safety is insufficient, there is likely to be a lack oftrust with that agency. Interviewees were not asked to answer the same questions as intervieweeresponses guided subsequent questions. I took special care to have each interviewee clarify anyresponse I did not understand as I was not sure if follow-up interviews would be feasible. Approxi-mately 40 hours of interviews were recorded with a flash-memory-based recording device. Theseinterviews were then transcribed and coded using qualitative data analysis techniques.

I used structural coding (Namey et al. 2008, Guest et al. 2012, Saldaña 2012) to illuminate keythemes in the data. I structurally coded content in phrases representing a key theme related to resi-dent perceptions of agency recreancy. I began by looking for key themes based on the issues raisedby questions posed in the interviews, but I was also open to identifying additional, emergent themesrelated to recreancy that were noted by the respondents. This permitted analysis of various forms ofrecreancy. I began with line-by-line coding of important phrases and words. Phrases coded as fallingunder a specific theme were collected together for analysis. Analysis then consisted of identificationof any forms of recreancy noted by residents interviewed.

5. Findings

From the interviews, I identified codes that were categorised into five key themes related torecreancy. The five themes were (1) disagreement on the number of truly dangerous floods, (2)whether a particular flood affected specific households, (3) concern that the flood control infrastruc-ture proposed was truly fair and effective for everyone involved, (4) doubts that relocation was reallynecessary, and (5) the length of the project planning process.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

5.1. Disagreement on the danger of floods

If risks are assessed by a public agency and used to make determinations about relocation, the com-munity may disagree. In such cases, the community may distrust the agency, and agency actions mayinvolve recreancy. HCFCD cited the numerous floods of Hunting Bayou in order to justify planning forrelocation of some residents in Kashmere Gardens. But some resident interviewees said they believedthat the HCFCD representatives overstated the number of dangerous flood events. While no onequestioned that Kashmere Gardens has flooding problems, many residents felt the flooding didnot justify relocation. If people choose to live in a neighbourhood subject to floods, they mustlearn to deal with them. As one resident commented,

As far as I know, no one has ever died in the flooding. People have had heart attacks trying to keep water out oftheir homes and trying to keep their belongings dry. That’s not the same thing as being washed away anddrowned in a flood.

Another resident added that a bigger concern for people is when they try to drive when the neigh-bourhood is flooding but their cars malfunction because of the water: “People have to know to leavebefore the water gets too high or your car floods, you can’t see the road well, and you risk driving intoa drainage ditch.” In both instances, the respondents recognised the importance of floods, but theyalso asserted that there are practices to manage the dangers of flooding. By avoiding driving in deepwater and other practices, no one would have to be relocated.

In this case study, it would be difficult for any public agency to devise an outcome that satisfiedthe EJ and recreancy concerns of all community members. Perhaps the only possible way to plan forflooding in Kashmere Gardens is to create a project with EJ and recreancy concerns in mind and toimplement a project that disturbs as few people as possible. But insofar that a floodmitigation projectrequired relocation, there was indeed the conditions for residents to suspect recreancy on the part ofthe agency. Because residents did not see floods as being so dangerous as to require relocation, theycame to suspect other motives on the part of HCFCD in proposing relocation.

5.2. Risk of individual houses to flooding

Beyond the question of whether there are serious floods, there arose the issue of whether specifichouses were more subject to flooding, and thus whether those households required relocation.HCFCD made determinations of which houses were more subject to flooding as the basis for decidingwhich residents would have to be relocated. As with the question of the severity of floods and thusthe overall necessity for relocation, the issue of which houses were most subject to flooding was metwith doubts by some residents.

Some interviewees argued that not all of the households in Kashmere Gardens were slated forrelocation due to the construction of their housing rather than their level of flood risk. Somehouses are slab on grade, whereas others have pier and beam foundations. As one resident commen-ted, “Those slab foundation houses get a lot of water but most of the raised ones (pier and beam)don’t.” HCFCD documents say foundation differences do not matter in the parts of Hunting Bayouwatershed where flooding is the worst. The upshot here is that resident doubts about HCFCD reloca-tion decisions were based on perceptions tied to differing criteria for relocation than those indicatedin HCFCD documents.

Other residents questioned the basis on which HCFCD determined which houses were mostsubject to flooding. In particular, some residents criticised HCFCD’s decisions about relocating specifichouseholds because HCFCD did not visit Kashmere Gardens during flood events.

They [HCFCD representatives] can come into our neighborhood and tell people their houses flooded when they[HCFCD representatives] were not here during the flooding? That doesn’t seem right. They shared their list offloods but the only time my own house flooded was during Tropical Storm Allison.

8 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

As with the issue of housing foundations as a possible means of determining which houses weresubject to relocation, resident and HCFCD criteria for determining flood risk differed. Whereas resi-dents focused on actual experiences of flooding and the lack of HCFCD presence during floods,HCFCD worked from topographic maps indicating elevations above Hunting Bayou. The result of dif-fering means to determine flood vulnerability for individual houses meant that HCFCD decisionsabout household relocation appeared arbitrary and capricious to residents. In turn, to residents, relo-cation decisions by HCFCD appeared to be made in bad faith after a lack of consultations with resi-dents. This constituted another instance of resident perceptions of mistrust in the agency and thussuspicions of recreancy.

5.3. The effectiveness of flood control infrastructure

Given that an explicit purpose of Project Hunting is to pursue EJ by protecting Kashmere Gardensresidents from repetitive flood risk, the project may not be environmentally just if those residentsare still subject to flooding. HCFCD officials freely admit that the purpose of Project Hunting is notthe total elimination of all of flood risk, but is an ecological, cost-, and community-effective way ofdealing with flood risk in Kashmere Gardens. Especially in the context of climate change and possiblymore powerful storms, including hurricanes, there are never ironclad guarantees against flooding incoastal cities.

With this in mind and with the knowledge of other flood risk mitigation projects in the Houstonarea, some Kashmere Gardens residents were wary of Project Hunting. Some residents were rightfullyconcerned that flood control just meant forcing water to other parts of Kashmere Gardens asopposed to diverting it away from the community. One Kashmere Gardens resident shared, “Wegot (dispersion) channels throughout the neighborhood and the bayou’s been straightened too. Itstill floods here. What makes this new plan so different?”

Other Kashmere Gardens residents cited experiences in other parts of Houston, where floodingproblems allegedly became worse after the implementation of flood control projects. As one Kash-mere Gardens resident said,

I have friends who live in other parts of the city who say they didn’t have any problems with flooding until after aHCFCD project was built. Now their houses flood all the time. All that water has to go somewhere if the groundcannot absorb it. Pushing the water around within the neighborhood makes no sense. Getting it out of the neigh-borhood as fast as possible is what I am for.

In this instance, Kashmere Gardens residents cited other cases, and not even Project Hunting itself, insupport of their suspicions of the project in their neighbourhood.

At the same time, HCFCD plans to widen and deepen Hunting Bayou raised questions as to whyrelocation would be needed at all. Hence whereas some residents felt that the flood control projectmight not control floods, others asked why relocation was necessary if flood control was so extensive.As one interviewee recounted,

When they first told us their plan, they were only going to widen the bayou. But when we complained that inother neighborhoods the bayous going through them get dredged deeper, the (HCFCD) plans all of a suddenchanged to include the dredging but we still have to move. I think it’s because our houses are cheaper thanin other areas where they wouldn’t be able to afford to relocate folks.

That residents posed arguments that flood control was sufficient not only suggests disagreementamong residents about post-project flood risk, but also doubts among residents of HCFCD’s plansfor flood control and relocation. Shifts in HCFCD plans for Project Hunting thus appear to havecaused confusion among residents, leading them to doubt all versions of the plans as to their efficacyfor flood control as well as the necessity of relocation. This in turn raises issues of communicationbetween the agency and residents, as well as among residents themselves. If effective communi-cation is important for EJ and the mitigation of recreancy, communication must also include why

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

specific project elements are being pursued over other alternatives. The appearance of waffling onwhether to both widen and deepen did not put HCFCD in a good light.

5.4. The necessity of relocation

In light of questions about the severity of flooding, the susceptibility of particular houses to flooding,and the effectiveness of flood control infrastructure, residents commented extensively on the issue ofthe necessity of relocation itself. Given resident differences with HCFCD and each other over theseissues, it was not surprising that they also took issue with HCFCD’s proposal for relocation. The ques-tion of relocation became especially thorny for HCFCD because the proposal adopted (1) called forinvoluntary relocation, and (2) only certain members of the community would be relocated. HenceHCFCD imposed the division of the community of Kashmere Gardens, something the residentsresented and therefore questioned.

Not surprisingly, those residents subject to involuntary relocation were upset with this part ofProject Hunting. Many questioned the necessity of relocation if an effective flood control programmewas being pursued. One interviewee summed up the feelings of many community residents inasking, “Why do some get to stay and some are forced to leave? If the project is going to work, letit work for everyone.” Another resident elaborated further:

I have lived here all of my adult life and never asked anybody for anything. Yeah I know the neighborhood floodsand my house floods sometimes but that’s a risk I take. The people that get to stay have the option to continue totake that risk. We know that the [HCFCD] project won’t handle all of the water during real bad storms. That shouldbe my risk to take. Relocation for some (households) but not all makes no sense to me.

Other residents stated that HCFCD was putting its concerns ahead of community member concernsthrough pursuing relocation. But new concerns would arise for the relocated. Residents sharedvarious comments on this theme. One complained, “It may be easier for them [HCFCD] to moveme away from my home, but it sure won’t be easy for me to start over in a new place.” Another resi-dent argued, “Relocation might be cheaper than providing money to help a family after their housefloods, but not everything is about money.”

Historically, public agencies have been reluctant to pursue community relocation. In most caseswhen it is pursued, everyone in a particular community is relocated away from the hazard in question,although relocation benefits may differ between renters and homeowners, and among homeownerswith different levels of equity built up in their homes. In situations where relocation is pursued forsome households and not others, it becomes especially difficult for an agency to argue a project isenvironmentally just if a goal of justice is keeping a community intact. In this context, resident suspi-cions of agency recreancy arose due to the proposal for partial and involuntary relocation. In particu-lar, residents suspected that HCFCD saw relocation and home demolition as a way to save money inthe case of future floods. Given questions about the severity of floods, the necessity to remove certainhouses, and the effectiveness of flood control infrastructure, pursuing involuntary relocations led toserious doubts about the intentions of HCFCD representatives.

5.5. The length of the project planning process

In any type of negotiation, a fair settlement happens sooner rather than later (Fisher and Ury 1981).Timeliness is especially important when a project to reduce risks is implemented for a community.Without expediency in the face of danger, there can be no EJ, and public officials engaging in nego-tiations lacking expediency with a community can be characterised as engaging in recreancy.

The concept for Project Hunting has been around since 1990, when the USACE submitted its feasi-bility report on Buffalo Bayou and tributaries to the Committee on Public Works of the US House ofRepresentatives. One re-evaluation was performed in 1996, and another is currently underway. A keyimpediment is that the USACE cannot distribute funds without approval from Congress. USACE-

10 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

assisted infrastructure project planning, federal financial approval, funding appropriations, and theeventual disbursement of federal funds can take a long time (Freudenburg et al. 2011, Tegederand Noll 2011).

As a result of the seemingly interminable delays, many interviewees expressed frustration with thelack of progress on Project Hunting. As one resident of Kashmere Gardens complained, “If this projectis so great, why hasn’t it started before now? They [HCFCD] have been talking about doing somethingfor twenty-some odd years now.” Another resident expressed similar frustration:

If anybody really cared about this neighborhood, it [Project Hunting] would have happened by now. You almostforget that there is a plan for flooding since everything has taken so long. We put up with the water for this long,why should we do anything differently? I can’t stand the water but the waiting for them [HCFCD] can be worse. If Ireally wanted out of here, don’t they think I would have left in all this time?

If the primary definition of environmental injustice concerns the disproportionate exposure toenvironmental hazards, a corollary would be the time elapsed to remove such hazards or otherwisereduce human exposure. Hence longer delays to implementation imply environmental injustice. Itmight seem obvious that a project that explicitly addresses EJ concerns should be undertakensooner rather than later. By implication, delays not only indicate injustice, but they raise the corre-sponding question of whether recreancy is engendered in decisions by responsible authorities todelay. Even if delays in project implementation are due to bureaucratic snags and funding shortfallsrather than any intent to harm per se, in the interim, delays nonetheless lead to exposures to hazards.

Beyond delays in implementation, there are also issues of the division of functions and responsi-bilities among public agencies. In particular, confusion over responsibilities, even without delays inproject implementation, suggests a lack of adequate project organisation that can lead to frustrationamong community residents. In turn, recreancy becomes an issue if a project does not seem to be theresponsibility of the appropriate agency. In the case of Project Hunting, HCFCD’s partnering withUSACE and other agencies led to confusion on the part of Kashmere Gardens residents.

6. Conclusion

Even in a project with explicitly stated concerns for EJ, issues of recreancy still arise. The case ofProject Hunting and Kashmere Gardens reveals the difficulty of sufficiently accounting for EJ andrecreancy concerns in flood control projects. A variety of factors contribute to perceptions ofrecreancy on the part of public agencies by minority communities facing relocation. The foregoinganalysis showed that community perceptions of flood risk, questions about the need to relocatespecific households, and other sources of doubt led residents to question the need for relocationand by extension HCFCD’s intentions with Project Hunting.

Of particular importance were key characteristics of the relocation proposal itself: it was imposed,and only part of the community would be relocated. These characteristics led to divided perceptionsamong community members about the necessity of relocation. Where some residents questionedthe need for relocation at all, others became frustrated waiting to be relocated. Further, residentscame to attribute different motives to HCFCD’s relocation plan and its various details. Stemmingfrom this situation, many residents characterised HCFCD’s proposal and its planning process interms of recreancy. This occurred in the broader context of a history of distrust of public agenciesamong minority communities, which made it difficult for HCFCD to proceed transparently in ashow of good faith, along with governmental constraints on implementation.

As a result, interviewees expressed various perceptions of recreancy on the part of HCFCD. Thispermits an elaboration of Freudenberg’s (1993) general definition of recreancy, at least for thepresent case. Here I focus on the issue of relocation as a key element of Project Hunting, and I high-light resident perceptions of recreancy, understanding that HCFCD sought to act in good faith. Oneinstance of perceptions of recreancy by community members concerns the inadequate communi-cation by HCFCD. While there were several meetings with community members, many interviewees

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

nonetheless expressed frustration with a lack of information about what was going on with planningfor the implementation of Project Hunting. A second instance concerns limited responsiveness byHCFCD to concerns raised by community members.

Whether concerns with HCFCD’s lack of presence during flood events or questions for aboutspecific households slated for relocation, residents expressed confusion about HCFCD decisions.This led to perceptions of recreancy tied to a lack of responsiveness and thus inattention. A thirdinstance stemming from the second was a lack of transparency by HCFCD in explaining theirdecisions. This particularly applied to the issues of relocating some but not all households andwhy a given household would be relocated. Residents focused on housing construction while theHCFCD had other criteria, such as elevation or distance from Hunting Bayou. The distinct explanationsthat arose led to perceptions that HCFCD had hidden agendas behind their decisions. A final instanceof perceptions of recreancy concerned the long time frame from the initial proposal for ProjectHunting to actual implementation. While HCFCD proceeded in good faith with USACE towardsimplementation, HCFCD was also dependent on USACE and in turn the US Congress for approvaland appropriations. Nonetheless, to community members this looked like inattention, which led toperceptions of recreancy.

Two key insights arise from these various instances of perceptions of recreancy. The first is thatrecreancy has a significant subjective component. Even if a public agency proceeds in good faith,it is likely to encounter obstacles and extenuating circumstances that complicate the implementationof projects, even when they are intended to contribute to EJ. Of course, key elements of a project,such as how relocation is designed (imposed or voluntary, universal or selective), also affect commu-nity perceptions of recreancy. The second is that perceptions of recreancy have multiple aspects andcan arise for a variety of reasons. The pre-existing history of distrust (including other cases of similarprojects elsewhere and their outcomes), among other factors, can also give rise to community per-ceptions of recreancy by public agencies. This calls for careful consideration of the various concernsby the affected community and the many sources of frustration and confusion by residents that cangive rise to perceptions of recreancy.

The present study case also shows that projects to address environmental injustice can nonethe-less lead to environmental injustice as well as recreancy. That is, recreancy is not merely the absenceof EJ; implementation of projects to achieve EJ can give rise to injustice and perceptions of recreancy.This complicates the relationship of EJ and recreancy, by distinguishing intent from actual implemen-tation and by differentiating plans by a public agency from perceptions of the affected community. Incases of relocation, this complexity is particularly likely to arise when relocation is imposed and onlyon a portion of a community. By contrast, when relocation is voluntary or involves the entire commu-nity, perceptions of unequal treatment and thus injustice are less likely to arise.

These findings bear implications for planning of flood control projects and other public works thatrequire relocation. Most planning officials would nowadays argue that outsiders can never value theimportance of a specific community to its residents as well as that community’s residents can. If this isthe case, planning processes based not just on fostering community participation and input but morecommunity immersion by HCFCD public agency personnel may be necessary. Another matter forconsideration is the idea that we really will not know how well Project Hunting works until projectcompletion. We also will not know if the other means of reducing community perceptions ofrecreancy, government agency coordination, has helped until a serious storm occurs after the com-pletion of construction. Perhaps communities would be more trusting of project manager promises ifthose managers shared their post-project flood models with the affected community.

EJ situations where the hazard in question does not result from the actions of some bad actor(such as with pollution) may be cases where recreancy is most likely to arise for public agencies asthere is no other actor to blame. Quantitative EJ research has shown us that low-income minoritycommunities are more prone to experience repetitive flood risk and that we may be underestimatingand under-preparing for those risks (Zhang 2010). In cities where flood risk is a citywide issue, gov-ernmental agencies responsible for alleviating flood risk must be cognisant not only of comparisons

12 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

of flood control projects among communities, but also of differential treatment within communitiesaffected by flood control projects, particularly if relocation is involved.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCiD

Kevin Lynn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3765-0803

References

Aecom Technical Services, Inc, 2014a. Hunting bayou flood risk management Harris county, Texas. Draft general reeva-luation report and integrated environmental assessment. Main Report June 2014. For the Harris County Flood ControlDistrict. Available from: www.swg.usace.army.mil/Portals/26/docs/Planning/00_Hunting_Bayou_GRR-EA_Main-Report_Part1.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2015].

Aecom Technical Services, Inc, 2014b. Hunting bayou flood risk management, Harris County, Texas. Draft GeneralReevaluation Report, Appendix 5, Economic analysis. Available from: http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Portals/26/docs/Planning/05_Hunting_Bayou_GRR-EA_Appendix05-ECON.pdf [Accessed 9 March 2015].

Aecom Technical Services, Inc, 2014c. Hunting bayou flood risk management Harris county, Texas. Draft general reeva-luation report and integrated environmental assessment. Appendix 1, Attachment C, Environmental justice analysis.June 2014. For the Harris County flood control district. Available from: www.swg.usace.army.mil/Portals/26/docs/Planning/00_Hunting_Bayou_GRR-Appendix01-ENVI_part1.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2015].

Bedient, P., 2012. Lessons from Hurricane Ike. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Blakely, E.J., 2011. My storm: managing the recovery of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.Bullard, R.D., 1987. Invisible Houston: the black experience in boom and bust. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Bullard, R.D., 1990. Ecological inequities and the New South: black communities under siege. The Journal of Ethnic Studies,

17 (4), 101–115.Bullard, R.D., 2006. Katrina and the second disaster: a twenty-point plan to destroy black New Orleans. Poverty and Race,

15 (6), 20–22.Bullard, R.D. and Johnson, G., 2000. Environmental justice: grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision

making. Journal of Social Sciences, 56 (3), 555–578.Bullard, R.D. and Wright, B., 2012. The wrong complexion for protection: how government response to disaster endangers

African American communities. New York: New York University Press.Čapek, S.M., 1993. The “environmental justice” frame: a conceptual discussion and an application. Social Problems, 40 (1),

5–24.City of Houston Planning and Development Department Public Policy Division, 2010. Kashmere Gardens super neighbor-

hood demographic and income profile. Houston: City of Houston Planning and Development Department Public PolicyDivision.

Dixon, J. and Ramutsindela, M., 2006. Urban resettlement and environmental justice in Cape Town. Cities, 23 (2), 129–139.Douglas, E.M. et al., 2012. Coastal flooding, climate change and environmental justice: identifying obstacles and incen-

tives for adaptation in two Boston, Massachusetts communities. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange, 17, 537–562.

Fisher, R. and Ury, W.L., 1981. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.Fletcher, T., 2002. Neighborhood change at love canal: contamination, evacuation, and resettlement. Land Use Policy, 19

(4), 311–323.Freudenburg, W.R., 1993. Risk and recreancy: weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social

Forces, 71 (4), 909–932.Freudenburg, W.R. et al., 2011. Catastrophe in the making: the engineering of Katrina and the disasters of tomorrow.

Washington, DC: Island Press.Goodman, L.A., 1961. Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32 (1), 148–170.Gordon, J.S., 2010. Perceptions of recreancy in the BP deepwater horizon oil spill: a study of two Mississippi coastal

communities. Available from: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/submitted/gordon_2010.pdf [Accessed15 March 2015].

Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., and Namey, E.E., 2012. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6

Harper, K., Steger, T., and Filĉák, R., 2009. Environmental justice and Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe.Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 251–268.

Maantay, J. and Maroko, A., 2009. Mapping urban risk: flood hazards, race, and environmental justice in New York. AppliedGeography, 29 (1), 111–124.

Namey, E.G. et al., 2008. Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In: G. Guest and K.M. MacQueen, eds.Handbook for team-based qualitative research. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 137–161.

Ritchie, L.A., Gill, D.A., and Farnham, C.N., 2013. Recreancy revisited: beliefs about institutional failure following the ExxonValdez oil spill. Society and Natural Resources, 26 (6), 655–671.

Saldaña, J., 2012. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Suttmeier, R.P., 2011. China’s management of environmental crises: risks, recreancy, and response. In: Jae Ho Chung, ed.

China’s crisis management. London: Routledge, 144–168.Tegeder, D. and Noll, S., 2011. Ditch of dreams: the cross Florida barge canal and the struggle for Florida’s future. Gainesville:

University Press of Florida.Timmons Roberts, J. and Toffolon-Weiss, M., 2001. Chronicles from the environmental justice frontline. New York:

Cambridge University Press.United Church of Christ, 1987. Toxic wastes and race in the United States: a national report on the racial and socio-economic

characteristics of communities with hazardous waste sites. New York: UCC Commission for Racial Justice.United States Government Accounting Office (GAO), 1983. Siting of hazardous waste landfills and their correlation with

racial and economic status of surrounding communities. Washington, DC: United States Government Accounting Office.Walker, G. and Burningham, K., 2011. Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: evidence and evaluation of

inequality in a UK context. Critical Social Policy, 20 (10), 1–25.Wilson, S.M. et al., 2010. Climate change, environmental justice, and vulnerability: an exploratory analysis. Environmental

Justice, 3 (1), 13–19.Zhang, Y., 2010. Residential housing choice in a multihazard environment: implications for natural hazards mitigation and

community environmental justice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30 (2), 117–131.

14 K. LYNN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kev

in L

ynn]

at 1

4:38

21

June

201

6