Fighting for environmental justice: a conversation with attorney Taylor Lilley

On May 19, HerChesapeake hosted a conversation with Taylor Lilley, the environmental justice staff attorney for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). She focuses on developing litigation to address disproportionate environmental impacts on vulnerable and marginalized communities across the watershed. It was an enlightening and inspiring conversation about fighting entrenched systems of power and helping give a voice to communities that have been historically discounted by those systems of power. Even simply bringing daylight to the harms many communities face can be so powerful. All of this work is critical for the health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the people who call it home. 

We are grateful to Taylor for her incredible work, and for candidly sharing her story and teaching all of us about the challenges of fighting against environmental injustices. You can find a summary of the conversation below. 

(These interview answers have been edited for length and clarity.)

How do you define environmental justice (EJ)? Can you describe the process by which injustices occur?

Environmental justice is essentially a function of social drivers and environmental harms. It’s also important to think about it as a goal, - environmental justice is what we want to achieve. The environmental justice movement is the “forgotten child” of the environmental movement and civil rights movement of the late 20th century. It can be traced back to a protest in Warren County, NC in the 1980s when community members there laid down in front of government trucks that were coming in to dump toxic waste. This helped spark a national conversation about the disproportionate impact of environmental harms on communities of color. Overall, injustices happen because of a lack of meaningful involvement of the communities themselves, and the systems of power that fall into old cycles of where to put certain projects that cause environmental and health hazards. President Bill Clinton signed an executive order in the 1990s about EJ, but we’ve learned over time that statements aren’t enough. The error is in the enforcement.

What is your background and journey? How did you end up in environmental justice?

I am originally from Port St. Lucie, FL, and I decided that I wanted to become a lawyer when I was around nine. As I got older, I eventually learned what environmental law was, and I decided to study environmental science at the University of Florida before researching the best environmental law schools. I ended up at the University of Maryland law school in Baltimore, and started there just a few months after the uprising that occurred following the death of Freddie Gray. I actually took a class called “Freddie Gray’s Baltimore,” which discussed issues of race in the city and across the country. That encouraged me to think critically about the systems and structures that make our country the way it is. I knew that I wanted to litigate, and I wanted to make a difference. My first exposure to environmental justice occured while I was participating in a program in Palestine, and later at my first job at the Environmental Law Institute down in the Gulf. These experiences helped me learn how EJ is truly people-focused. You have to engage with communities on a deep level. We have a tendency sometimes to pre-define communities, to assume we know everything ahead of time, and that is a waste of everyone’s time. You have to truly listen to them in order to understand what they are facing. It can feel like an emotional burden at times knowing that so many of these people have never been listened to before, but our field has to take accountability for that.

What have you learned about what makes a good lawyer? How can those lessons translate to non-lawyers?

The classic joke is, “If you ask a lawyer for a straight answer, they’ll say it depends.” There are never obvious answers. Someone’s interpretation of the law doesn’t make it the law - when you see people talking about it on TV, the answers depend on who is talking. How those stories get presented on TV really shave down the nuance of what’s in the law. It’s important to remember that lawyers and judges - just like everyone else - are just people. They’re not all powerful or infallible. The people I respected the most in law school were the ones that just did the work - the ones that didn’t play games, put others down, “title-bash” others. I respect the good people who want to listen and help. And that’s what I try to do - to be accessible and listen, not show off the “ivory tower” system that built me. I think that absolutely translates to non-lawyers too. 

How are EJ issues brought to light? How does a lawyer get involved?

A lot of what I work on relies on grassroots advocacy and word of mouth. For example, for my first case at CBF, I went to a rally and ended up meeting people who were talking about two planned natural gas plants and pipeline projects in Charles County, VA - a very rural community that would not see the energy produced by these projects but would bear the environmental harms. You really just have to build relationships with people who can report out on what’s happening in their community. Then, you have to get on the ground level, try and get county leaders not to approve these kinds of projects, and, if necessary, you have the option of appealing decisions and continuing the process through the courts. 

Can you tell us about any recent projects or cases you worked on?

I recently worked on a case about a plant in rural Virginia that was part of the Mountain Valley Pipeline expansion. Compressor stations, like the one that was proposed, emit a pollutant that causes a lot of health and respiratory problems. Because of this we challenged the application and proposed permit for this plant, which clearly did not meaningfully engage the predominantly Black community and failed to adequately address potential health concerns. We engaged on this permit with local residents, activists and other environmental groups and we ultimately ended up being successful in getting the state’s Air Pollution Control Board to deny the permit. However, the company appealed the decision while simultaneously lobbying state legislators who rewrote the law to remove the air board’s authority to approve or deny permits moving forward. We’ll see what happens next, but that taught me that even though we achieved a victory for this community at the time, the work is not always done when we think it is. 

As more and more EJ litigation takes place, what is the strategy in the EJ field to deal with the political elements of the work?

It’s true that sunlight cuts both ways. Now that more people know what EJ is and that it needs to be a priority, many energy companies and other businesses are preemptively talking about it in their permit applications to try and “check the box.” But ultimately, a lot of these bad projects get by because no one asks questions. You have to bring things to light. You have to be prepared and work to build coalitions that are just as strong and dedicated as the opposition. There’s nothing inevitable about these projects. They are not above our reach, just because the blockade of government or big business seems so daunting. It’s difficult work and we are not always successful, but we have to build and keep pushing. We understand that some of the battles may be lost, but we have to stay focused on the end goal.

What changes (if any) do you see coming to your field now that there's an Office of Environmental Justice at the federal level? Do you think it will actually make a difference?

I am cautiously optimistic and hopeful, but so much has been disappointing at the federal level. At the same time, DOJ brings enforcement, and that makes me excited. An active arm of the government engaging in enforcement on behalf of BIPOC communities, low income communities, and other marginalized communities is a good thing. However, things can change or get defunded when administrations change, and EJ cases tend to take a lot longer than any one political cycle, so I’m encouraged but cautious.