REGULATE, RESIST, REPEAT: THE GLOBAL LIFE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS FOR AN AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CONTROVERSY

Abstract

This thesis investigates the contested environmental impact assessments prepared for the Eastgate Air Cargo Facility at the San Bernardino International Airport in Southern California. Drawing on the lenses of Tsing (2004) and Murphy (2017), I use discourse analysis to trace the universalizing work of Eastgate’s environmental impact assessments and their epistemic infrastructures. I argue that the assessment documents and their structures constrained which harms mattered, while permitting those harms in exchange for any benefits. This allowed the San Bernardino International Airport Authority to approve Eastgate in a politically legitimate managerial decision that exchanged environmental harms for “economic benefits.” These authoritative structures set the terms for legitimate resistance to the project. While many demanded justice through a community benefits agreement, these demands were incompatible and deemed illegitimate. Others legally challenged one of the assessments, arguing for the legally-mandated consideration and disclosure of environmental harms. When the court ruled in favor of Eastgate’s proponents, the legitimacy of the project was strengthened. Constrained by the documents and their authoritative structures, Eastgate’s opponents collaborated with proponents to expand the logic that ultimately legitimates extractive development.