Imagine a world where billions of dollars are allocated based on a single tool, yet some of the most vulnerable communities still fall through the cracks. That’s the reality in California, where the state’s pollution tracker, CalEnviroScreen, is undergoing its latest update—sparking both hope and controversy. But here’s where it gets controversial: while officials claim they’re listening to communities more than ever, advocates argue that systemic data gaps continue to leave some neighborhoods invisible to the very system designed to help them. Who truly benefits from this update, and who gets left behind?
California is once again refining CalEnviroScreen, the tool it uses to determine which polluted communities receive cleanup funding. This isn’t just about numbers—it’s about lives. Since its inception, CalEnviroScreen has directed billions of dollars to the state’s most burdened neighborhoods, but critics say it’s still missing the mark in some areas. The latest update, the fifth iteration, promises to address this by adding two new indicators: diabetes prevalence (since those with diabetes are more vulnerable to air pollution) and small air toxic sites, like urban oil wells and dry cleaners. These changes, developed in collaboration with eight community organizations, aim to paint a more accurate picture of environmental risks.
But this is the part most people miss: even with these improvements, the tool’s limitations persist. For instance, advocates argue that critical data, such as tree canopy coverage and wildfire smoke exposure, are still absent. Rebecca Overmyer-Velazquez, a coordinator for the Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier and Avocado Heights, emphasizes the need for ground-truthing—literally walking neighborhoods to identify all pollution sources, from heat islands to water stress. Without this, she says, the tool remains incomplete.
State officials acknowledge these concerns and plan to incorporate climate data and information about pollution magnets, like warehouses, in future updates. Yet, questions linger about the tool’s methodology. A 2024 study by Johns Hopkins University found that the previous version, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, was subjective enough to potentially cost certain communities billions in funding. Benjamin Huynh, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins, points out that even well-intentioned model developers can inadvertently introduce biases that determine who gets funding—and who doesn’t.
Take, for example, the use of emergency room visits for asthma as an indicator of air pollution sensitivity. Immigrants and other marginalized groups are less likely to seek emergency care, meaning their struggles may go uncounted. While state scientists defend the tool’s accuracy, advocates argue that the bigger issue isn’t the data itself, but how—or if—the tool is used to drive real change.
CalEnviroScreen was born out of environmental justice advocacy in the 1990s, but today, activists like Bradley Angel of Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice question whether the programs it funds are actually reducing pollution. They argue that state agencies aren’t leveraging the tool aggressively enough, such as denying waste permits to polluters. Is California truly prioritizing health over profit?
Contrast this with New Jersey, which has taken a bolder approach. Inspired by CalEnviroScreen, New Jersey now requires polluting facilities to analyze cumulative impacts on overburdened communities and denies permits to those that can’t avoid harm. This raises a provocative question: Why can’t California do the same?
As California moves forward with its latest update, the stakes couldn’t be higher. While the tool is undeniably essential, its effectiveness hinges on how it’s implemented. Caroline Farrell, director of the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic at Golden Gate University, sums it up: “The tool is just a tool. It’s how you use it that matters.” So, as the state gathers public feedback and prepares to finalize the update this summer, one thing is clear: the fight for environmental justice is far from over. What do you think? Is California doing enough, or is it time for a more radical approach? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
