Deciding Who Breathes Dirty Air: External Power and Everyday Life in Camden, 1960s-Present

I. Introduction

Imagine coming home on a Friday evening, ready to unwind and start your weekend, when suddenly you hear the faint whir of emergency vehicles outside, their volume and urgency gradually increasing as they continue their speedy approach. You walk to your front door to search for the source. Instead, you are faced with an apocalyptic scene: an enormous plume of thick, black smoke rising into the evening sky, overtaking multiple street blocks of your neighborhood. The scene is horrifying, but familiar. You know exactly where this dense wall of smoke is coming from. This was the reality for one Waterfront South resident, Aliya Jones, when she looked out her front door on Friday, February 21st of 2025. “It’s terrifying. It’s nightmarish. I haven’t slept,” said Jones.^[1]

Jones, her mother, and her 19-year-old daughter were forced to evacuate their home, along with 100 other nearby residents, due to the extent of the fire that took place at the EMR Advanced Recycling facility, which burned for over six hours that night.^[2] When Jones and her family returned to their home, there was a lingering odor, napkins and mail were tinged with an unsettling brown discoloration, the smoke detectors beeped incessantly, even after batteries were replaced, and Jones feared the nebulizer machine she uses for her asthma had been damaged by the smoke. Aliya Jones was unable to return to work for weeks after the February 2025 fire. She suffered from insomnia and nightmares and was constantly on alert in case of another fire, for which the EMR facility has no alarms, just 2,000 feet away.^[3]

Fires at the EMR facility and other events like it have become a part of normal life in Waterfront South, Camden. Situated on the banks of the Delaware River in the southern part of Camden, NJ, just across from Philadelphia, Waterfront South is a primarily working-class, low-income neighborhood that is predominantly Black and Latino. The number of people living below the poverty line is just about four times the New Jersey state average, and the median household income is less than half the state median, making these individuals more vulnerable to environmental racism.^[4] The neighborhood is home to at least 27 contaminated sites, including two superfund sites, and residents are disproportionately affected by respiratory illnesses like asthma, as well as higher rates of cancer compared to adjacent towns and suburbs.^[5] This environmental burden did not appear by accident. Waterfront South became a site of concentrated industrial activity through postwar development, zoning decisions, and permitting decisions that allowed noxious land uses right next to homes, schools, and recreational areas. Residents live with elevated health burdens, persistent smoke and odors, and a sense that their neighborhood was treated as expendable by local and federal governments. They have fought back through protests, community organizing, and legal action, which have directly affected current policy on permitting decisions and led to some improvements in air quality and associated health burdens.

To understand why Waterfront South is considered a sacrifice zone and how the legacy of environmental racism has shaped the community, the paper will answer the following questions: How have officials and regulators framed these environmental issues, and why have risk reduction efforts consistently lagged behind other parts of New Jersey, despite residents’ demands for justice? Why are Waterfront South residents disproportionately affected by environmental racism that has led to hazardous air quality and elevated rates of asthma and other illnesses?

To answer these questions, this paper will first trace the historical development of Waterfront South in Camden and the decision that turned it into an industrial sacrifice zone. Next, the specific sources of air pollution will be discussed, as well as the types of pollutants and the associated health effects. Then, residents’ experiences living in a sacrifice zone and how the community has fought back will be examined. Finally, why Waterfront South and communities like it matter in a broader context will be explained.

II. Postwar Industrial Expansion and the Making of Waterfront South

To understand how and why Waterfront South became a sacrifice zone, one must look back to the period after World War II that set the conditions necessary for Camden to be transformed into an area exposed to industrial pollution and concentrated poverty. Government-backed suburban growth and infrastructure development encouraged wealthier residents to leave, while industry decentralized in urban centers, leaving behind neighborhoods that were now ideal sites for polluting facilities. Discriminatory practices such as redlining and restrictive covenants limited access to suburban housing for Black families and other racial minorities, ensuring that these benefits of postwar growth were not distributed equally.

Before the war, Camden’s economy depended on industry and transportation, with its waterfront neighborhoods serving as a hub for both European immigrants and African Americans who worked in nearby factories and shipyards. Companies like Campbell’s Soup, RCA Victor, and the New York Shipbuilding Company anchored this diverse community.^[6] However, this diversity also meant that parts of Camden were redlined and labeled as “hazardous for investment,” on maps created by federal agencies such as the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which rated every neighborhood based on perceived loan risk and was entirely based on race.^[7] As a result, property values in Camden began to collapse in the 1930s, tax revenue decreased, and municipal services were curbed.

After the war, America saw a rise in suburbanization, which redistributed wealth, people, and political power away from older industrial cities and toward newly built residential communities outside of urban areas. As The American Yawp explains, federal housing policy, the G.I. Bill, and the expansion of mortgage insurance made suburban homeownership available to millions of Americans, especially returning veterans. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, known as the G.I. Bill, offered returning veterans low-cost mortgages and other benefits, such as stipends to attend college. The Federal Housing Administration further increased the opportunity for home ownership by insuring mortgages and protecting lenders.^[8] The construction of the North-South Freeway in the 1960s, now Interstate-676, provided an incentive for residents to move to the suburbs, while still being able to commute into the city easily. These programs were often framed as national measures of prosperity, but in practice, they worked through systems of racial exclusion. Black veterans were often blocked by local lenders and segregated housing markets, and mortgages insured by the FHA required “restrictive covenants” to be written into deeds of new suburban houses, explicitly stating that these homes could be sold to “members of the caucasian race only.” Additionally, the newly built highway displaced 1,289 families in Camden, with 85% being families of color.^[9]

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1948 case of Shelley v. Kraemer that restrictive covenants were unenforceable, but this decision did not dismantle the larger, established framework of residential segregation. Informal real estate practices and discriminatory lending decisions continued to favor white suburban expansion, resulting in a landscape where white households were able to accumulate wealth through homeownership and neighborhood appreciation. At the same time, Black communities were systematically denied the same opportunities for social mobility and economic investment.^[10]

This prolonged pattern of decentralization and disinvestment had profound consequences for Camden. As major corporations and employers moved their operations out of the city, jobs, tax revenue, and overall economic stability were lost. The city’s labor base was weakened, and the neighborhood’s long-term fiscal health was disregarded. Municipal infrastructure was left with fewer resources and less funding that would have otherwise been used to protect public health and to resist the siting of polluting facilities. Altogether, the lengthy history of discriminatory housing and lending practices, as well as the subsequent departure of major corporations in the area, paved the way for Camden, and particularly Waterfront South, to become the perfect breeding ground for siting industrial facilities that would prove to have a profound impact on residents’ health and happiness.^[11]

III. Concentration of Polluting Facilities in Waterfront South

Polluting facilities were established in Waterfront South as a result of a long history of suburban expansion, urban disinvestment, and racialized policy choices that made Camden increasingly vulnerable to environmentally burdensome land uses. As white residents and major employers moved out of the urban center after World War II, Camden lost population, political influence, and economic stability. In a city already weakened by white flight and capital flight, neighborhoods like Waterfront South became especially vulnerable to uses that wealthier suburbs were able to reject. The result was not simply industrial decline, but the concentration of pollution in a working-class neighborhood that is predominantly Black and Latino, which was treated as a place where environmental risk could be absorbed.^[12]

 An early example of this pattern was the Harrison Avenue Landfill, which operated “as an unregulated municipal landfill from 1952 to 1971.”^[13] The 86-acre site was located in the Cramer Hill neighborhood of Camden and was considered “abandoned” in 1971 because it was never officially capped, sealed, or managed in accordance with environmental regulations. This allowed the area to become an illegal dumping ground for additional hazardous waste. As a result, there were recurring fires from exposed trash piles, and toxic substances, such as PCBs, pesticides, and heavy metals, were able to be “exposed on the surface of the unstable, steep slopes and [interact] with the tides” of the Delaware River.^[14] Today, the former Harrison Avenue Landfill site is being remade into Cramer Hill Waterfront Park through ongoing restoration efforts, but that process itself reflects how long Camden was left to deal with the environmental damage caused by sites like this one.^[15] As the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) later documented, the former landfill required extensive shoreline protection, proper landfill closure, and natural resource restoration before it could be transformed into Cramer Hill Waterfront Park. This lengthy remediation process underscores how severe the original neglect was.^[16] Local Camden activist Roy Jones says, “None of this would exist in Cherry Hill. It wouldn’t even exist in the poorest white community, period. They just wouldn’t allow it.”^[17] Unlike wealthier, whiter neighborhoods, which were more likely to be shielded from environmental harm, Camden has to live with the consequences of abandonment first and remediation later.^[18]

This pattern continued in the late 1990s with the proposed St. Lawrence cement-grinding facility, which was to be established in Waterfront South at 2500 South Broadway in Camden.  The facility was permitted to start operations in 2001 following a lengthy legal battle initiated by residents of South Camden, who had serious concerns that it would add substantial air pollution to an already overburdened neighborhood.^[19] The company intended to use the site as a cement-grinding and cement-processing plant, turning raw material into GranCem, a cement substitute used in construction. Cement operations are a major source of particulate pollution, nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds, and fugitive dust.^[20] Residents were alarmed not only by the pollutants themselves but also by the scale of the heavy diesel truck traffic the plant would generate, which would send soot and exhaust fumes into nearby residential streets.^[21] In Waterfront South, where the neighborhood was already burdened by contaminated sites and poor air quality, that meant not only more truck fumes but also more dust, odor, and airborne particles from the plant itself. The facility became the focus of South Camden Citizens in Action (SCCA) v. NJDEP, a legal case that reflected Waterfront South’s broader frustration with a permitting system that did not adequately account for cumulative environmental burdens or the fact that this neighborhood was already overexposed to pollution.^[22] Although the legal dispute is discussed in greater detail later in this paper, it is important to note here because it shows how environmental injustice was being reproduced through ordinary regulatory decisions. The plant’s approval demonstrated that a neighborhood already shaped by poverty, racial segregation, and disinvestment could still be asked to absorb additional pollution in the name of economic development.

In 2006, the UK-based European Metal Recycling (EMR) company acquired a ferrous recycling site in Waterfront South in the 1500 block of South 6th Street, and expanded its footprint in the city in 2008 by buying the existing company, Camden Iron & Metal.^[23] EMR describes its Camden site as a metal-recycling operation that purchases, processes, and resells scrap metal and auto-related materials, including ferrous and non-ferrous metals from cars, appliances, industrial sources, and demolition debris.^[24] In 2015, the company received a massive $252.7 million tax incentive under the Economic Opportunity Act to expand its Camden operations, demonstrating that local officials treated the site as an economic development project, even though it added industrial activity to an already overburdened neighborhood.^[25] By 2023, NJDEP described the Camden site as a “state-of-the-art” facility, but that image contrasted sharply with the history of violations and repeated complaints tied to smoke, truck idling, and improper site conditions.^[26] For Waterfront South, the result was not just an occasional emergency but a steady pattern of air-quality burden, since the facility’s truck traffic, material piles, heavy equipment, and scrap processing all generated dust, diesel exhaust, and the potential for smoke when operations went wrong. That burden became especially visible in the major fires of 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2025, and in January 2026, the New Jersey Attorney General and NJDEP filed a public nuisance lawsuit against EMR over the recurring fires and hazardous conditions at its Camden facilities.^[27] Residents were left dealing with thick smoke, chemical odors, evacuations, and the fear that another fire could happen at any time.^[28]

Although these are just a few examples of polluting facilities in Camden and Waterfront South, together the landfill, the cement plant, and the metal recycling plants reveal how environmental injustice developed through accumulation. Each site deepened the neighborhood’s burden, and each one reflected a larger system that treated Camden as a place where pollution could be placed, expanded, or ignored. The concentration of these facilities was not accidental. It was the product of political and economic decisions shaped by racial inequality, and it left Waterfront South with a legacy of exposure that continues to define the neighborhood today.

IV. Resident Experience and Health Impacts

Waterfront South residents have lived with the emotional and physical strain of environmental injustice for decades. The neighborhood’s air pollution burden has sparked frustration and fear, as residents know the air they breathe is affected by nearby industrial facilities and recurring fires. These conditions are linked to respiratory illnesses such as asthma and other breathing problems, and the NJDEP’s Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project found that the neighborhood contains multiple facilities that contribute to particulate pollution and toxic air exposure, including emissions of metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and nickel. Pollutant exposure data, health risk data, and personal accounts from residents show that Waterfront South experiences elevated risks of cancer and other long-term health effects as a result of the environmental burden concentrated in the neighborhood.^[29]

This reality is visible in residents’ lived experience. Aliya Jones, whose story opens this paper, described the February 2025 EMR fire as “terrifying” and “nightmarish.”^[30] She said, “It’s hellish now, to live on this block and live in this neighborhood.” She has described lingering symptoms like trouble sleeping after the blaze because she feared another fire would break out at any moment, saying, “When I do doze off, I’ve felt like I’m letting my family down by not being on guard.” Christina Allen described a similar experience, saying that after the fire she suffered from “fatigue, headaches, coughs and a hoarse voice” and felt “in a daze.” Like Jones, Allen was evacuated from her home after the fire but was unable to take her cat with her, so she returned to check on her pet. When she returned home, still smelling of smoke and hazy, she said that every time she went inside, she felt so fatigued she just wanted to sleep. This unnerving symptom is further compounded by the fact that this is not Allen’s first experience with EMR’s repeated fires. During the 2020 fire at the facility, she was pregnant, and she is worried about what the long-term health impacts of living in the neighborhood will be for her and her son.

            The fire also affected places meant to feel safe, especially for children. Timothy Heatwole Shenk, a teacher at Sacred Heart School in Camden, said that when people returned to the neighborhood, there was a lingering odor in the grass at Liney Ditch Park, where his students go for recess every day. Additionally, there were concerns that the community garden on Emerald Street was affected by soot and ash that fell after the fire, potentially contaminating the soil and making it toxic for use.^[31] EMR later sent residents an apology letter, saying better screening of materials coming into the facility would be taken and that on-site fire suppression systems would be upgraded, but for many people in Waterfront South, the damage had already been done, and the letter did little to erase the fear and the disruption the fires had caused.

The air pollution in the neighborhood has also worsened existing health conditions and increased health anxiety. Angielus Galarza, a 21-year-old nursing student who has had asthma for almost her entire life, recalled that during the seven years she lived in Camden, her symptoms became much more severe, and that air pollution directly affects people like her who already struggle to breathe. She also said that “her experience in a low-income community experiencing poor air quality has taught her that this issue should be more of a concern to the general public.”^[32] Lula Williams, a 90-year-old woman who lives in Waterfront South, describes the neighborhood as “a dumping ground,” and says that “Most days you can hardly breathe.” Her neighbors have shared stories about foul odors and soot-covered porches, describing their experience as being “trapped inside an industrial ring.”^[33] Taken together, these personal accounts from residents show that air pollution in Waterfront South is not simply a technical or regulatory issue, but rather a lived experience that shapes how residents sleep, breathe, play, and imagine their own safety. The consequences of air pollution in the neighborhood are immediate, physical, and deeply disruptive, affecting residents’ daily routines and health.

Waterfront South’s air pollution burden has translated into serious and uneven health risks for residents. The NJDEP’s  Air Toxics Pilot Project found that the neighborhood was exposed to a dense mix of industrial pollutants, and that seven toxic air contaminants were predicted to exceed health benchmarks at one or more locations in Waterfront South. The major pollutants were identified as arsenic, cadmium, dioxin, hydrogen sulfide, lead, manganese, and nickel. Particulate matter was also identified as a major concern because it can aggravate respiratory illness and carry toxic metals into the lungs. The particulate matter analysis results showed that annual (defined as long-term) fine particulate matter levels (PM_2.5) had a risk ratio of 1.3, and 24-hour (defined as short-term) PM_2.5 levels had a risk ratio of 1.5, while short-term inhalable particulate matter (PM₁₀) levels had a risk ratio of 1.2.^[34] The risk ratio is defined as the risk in an exposed group divided by the risk in an unexposed group, where ratios greater than one indicate an increased risk associated with exposure.^[35] In other words, Waterfront South was not only exposed to pollution, but exposed at levels that exceeded health-based standards meant to protect residents from harm.

            The report also makes clear that the health effects of particulate matter and the seven major pollutants are both immediate and long-term. The report states that long-term exposure to hydrogen sulfide leads to symptoms involving the nasal tract, including lesions inside the nose and issues with an individual’s sense of smell. The short-term effects include headache and nausea, symptoms reminiscent of the personal accounts of residents in the neighborhood. Additionally, lead is a heavy metal that accumulates in the body and can lead to lead poisoning, which can be detrimental to children and infants, causing irreversible neurological deficits.^[36] Moreover, of the seven major pollutants, all but hydrogen sulfide and manganese are known to be carcinogens. The report’s cancer-risk table shows extremely high long-term risk ratios for several contaminants, including arsenic at 48, cadmium at 23, lead at 3, manganese at 2, nickel at 8, hydrogen sulfide at 4, and dioxin at 1.1.^[37] When compared to the table of polluting facilities included in the study, we see that Camden Iron & Metal, owned by EMR Recycling, had PM_2.5, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and nickel identified as the main pollutants of concern at the site, while St. Lawrence Cement has PM_2.5, PM₁₀, and manganese identified.^[38] These findings demonstrate that Waterfront South was exposed to a cumulative pollution burden, where each facility added to an already dangerous mix of air toxics and pollutants. In that sense, the cancer-risk table from the Air Toxics Pilot Project final report does more than identify individual contaminants; it shows how the concentration of polluting facilities in one neighborhood translated into higher long-term health risks for its residents.^[39] The EJAtlas summary on Waterfront South reinforces this pattern by noting that various polluting facilities in the neighborhood, such as the incinerator, power plant, and gypsum plant, emitted inhalable particulates linked to lung cancer, asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. In Waterfront South, 61% of residents reported respiratory symptoms compared with 35% in another unspecified Camden neighborhood.^[40] All in all, these figures show that the neighborhood’s pollution burden was not only measured in laboratory-style studies, but also felt in residents’ everyday breathing and health.

            Public health data from broader reporting sources point to the same conclusion. An ABC News report on environmental inequity noted that “People of color are 2.4 times as likely as white residents to live in areas with the highest respiratory risk from air pollution,” which helps explain why Waterfront South’s burden fits a larger pattern of racialized exposure rather than an isolated local problem.^[41] A 2012 Cancer Burden report from the American Cancer Society shows that Camden County’s lung cancer incidence rate exceeded the national average for both men and women: 76.9 per 100,000 for men compared with 68.8 nationally, and 56.7 per 100,000 for women compared with 40.6 nationally.^[42] These county-level cancer rates do not prove causation on their own, but when combined with the Air Toxic Pilot Project’s findings on toxic particulate exposure and carcinogenic pollutants, they reinforce the conclusion that Waterfront South residents have been forced to live with a level of exposure that increases long-term health risk and reflects the unequal distribution of environmental harm.^[43]

            Overall, residents’ testimonies show that pollution in Waterfront South is experienced as fear, exhaustion, and disruption in everyday life. Those lived experiences are reinforced by health data, which show that the neighborhood bears a cumulative burden of toxic exposure, respiratory illness, and elevated long-term cancer risk that reflects the uneven distribution of environmental harm.

V. Community Activism and Legal Action

            Community involvement in Waterfront South has been one of the neighborhood’s most important forms of resistance to environmental injustice. Faced with repeated siting of polluting facilities, recurring fires, and regulatory inaction, residents have responded through community organization, protesting, documenting pollution, working with advocacy and non-profit groups, and pursuing legal action to force public officials and private companies to acknowledge the harms they have caused. These efforts have been important not only for bringing attention to environmental racism in Camden, but also for forcing regulators, city officials, and private companies to confront the cumulative burden that Waterfront South residents have long borne. This section argues that community activism in Waterfront South has been a sustained and evolving form of resistance: it began with a landmark legal battle to challenge the siting of the St. Lawrence Cement facility in 2001, and it continues today through protests against EMR Recycling and its repeated industrial fires, pressure to change policy, and community initiatives to improve environmental conditions.

            One of the earliest forms of legal resistance in Waterfront South was the federal lawsuit brought by South Camden Citizens in Action (SCCA) against the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 2001. The lawsuit came about when the NJDEP approved air permits for the St. Lawrence Cement facility, which was to be established in Waterfront South, and would release pollutants such as particulate matter, lead, manganese, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxides into the air, and would bring an estimated 500 truck deliveries per day, every day. NJDEP granted these permits on the basis that the facility’s emissions would not surpass technical emission standards for particular pollutants, but it did not consider the cumulative burden in a predominantly minority neighborhood already saturated with polluting facilities. For residents already living with health burdens like asthma, odors, and constant industrial disruption, the proposal felt like another decision that treated Waterfront South as expendable: outside interests could impose risk without local consent in the name of economic development, while failing to consider the “racial and ethnic composition of the population” and the existing environmental burden in the neighborhood.^[44] On April 19th of 2001, a judge of the federal District Court in Camden issued an injunction that prohibited the facility from operating, citing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Title VI regulations that barred “disparate impact discrimination.” The EPA’s Title VI regulations were created in response to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA) Title VI, which prevented federal funds from being used “in a manner that had a disparate impact on people of color and other protected groups,” though since 1964, this clause has been revised so that only intentional discrimination could be considered a violation.^[45] Therefore, since the St. Lawrence Cement facility met the conditions necessary to be considered legal under environmental law, it was still in violation of the Civil Rights Act, demonstrating a shift from racist and discriminatory legal policy to legal policy that aimed to protect the health and economic interests of minority groups and disadvantaged residents of Waterfront South. The victory in the district court was short-lived: the case moved to the Supreme Court, where the Court overturned the ruling, holding that private entities could not enforce disparate-impact regulations under this section of Title VI of the CRA. The decision meant that only federal agencies could enforce the anti-discrimination measures, leaving residents with no judicial recourse or legal power. As a result, the injunction was lifted, and the facility was allowed to begin operations.^[46] Although the case did not ultimately stop the St. Lawrence Cement facility from operating, it gave residents a public platform to contest the siting decisions of state and federal agencies and set an important precedent that state actions could violate anti-discrimination laws even without explicit intent.

            While South Camden Citizens in Action v. NJDEP revealed the limits of permit-by-permit environmental review, New Jersey’s Environmental Justice Law marked the first major policy attempt to confront the cumulative burdens that residents had been fighting against since 2001. The new law went into effect on April 17, 2023, and represents a historic shift in how “hot spots” for disproportionate environmental burdens, like Waterfront South, are protected. For the first time in United States history, a state agency has the legal authority to deny permits based on the total burden of pollution already present in a community, rather than looking at a single facility. Permit applicants must develop an environmental justice impact statement and must conduct public hearings in host communities to collect and respond to public comments.^[47] Under the law, an “overburdened community” is defined as one where at least 35% of households are low-income, or at least 40% of residents are part of a minority group, or at least 40% of households have limited English proficiency.^[48] This framework matters in Camden because it recognizes that pollution should not be evaluated on a facility-by-facility basis when the entire neighborhood already faces multiple stressors from contaminated sites, truck traffic, and industrial emissions. For new facilities, the NJDEP must deny the permit if the project would cause or contribute to environmental or public health stressors that are higher than those in non-overburdened communities. While the state cannot always deny a renewal for an existing site, it can now impose strict new conditions to reduce pollution, such as requiring advanced scrubbing technology or electrifying truck fleets.^[49] In a major victory for advocates, the NJ Appellate Court ruled in January 2026 that industrial companies cannot use “economic benefits”, such as local tax revenue, as justification for bypassing these pollution limits.^[50] For Waterfront South, this major shift in how pollution is handled is especially important because the neighborhood is still considered to be an overburdened community and a “hot spot” since the neighborhood continues to carry a disproportionate share of environmental burdens compared with wealthier, whiter suburbs.^[51]

            More recent community activism in Waterfront South has focused on direct public protest, especially in response to EMR’s repeated fires. After the February 2025 blaze, Waterfront South residents gathered at a rally outside of EMR’s headquarters in Camden to demand stronger action from the city and greater accountability from the company, making it clear that they were tired of living with the smoke, evacuations, and uncertainty about when the next fire would break out. Aliya Jones, who organized the protest, called on the company to stop ignoring residents’ concerns and relocate out of the neighborhood. This protest in March 2025 followed the cancellation of a public meeting to discuss the February fire, leaving residents to wonder about the cause and what was being done to prevent future fires. EMR had already paid a $7,600 fine issued by the NJDEP to settle violations stemming from the past two fires, but residents say the penalty was not nearly enough. This, combined with the company’s lack of acknowledgment of public concerns, has led many to question how transparent the company and state agencies are with residents in the neighborhood.^[52]

            A few months later, in August of 2025, residents and activists reconvened at a city council meeting to challenge the city’s $6.7 million deal with EMR, which many saw as a transparency and accountability issue rather than a real solution.^[53] Activists criticized the agreement because, according to them, $3 million of the funds would be directed toward improvements EMR should have already implemented, rather than directly supporting the affected residents. Residents have expressed deep skepticism about the deal, noting that the community was not involved in drafting the agreement and could not voice concerns about the city’s ability to hold EMR accountable. Additionally, activists questioned, “why EMR held half the position on what would be a community benefit committee while residents got only two votes.”^[54] That item passed the city council without any changes, though it did approve an ordinance regulating lithium-ion batteries arriving at the EMR facility, which are a known cause of many of the fires at the recycling plant.^[55] Although these community meetings and protests did not produce immediate change, they are significant because community activism like that seen in Waterfront South and Camden has turned environmental harm into a question of democratic control, exposing how environmental racism also works through exclusion from decision-making.

            In addition to protests and pressure on government officials, Waterfront South residents and advocates have also turned to direct community action to improve their neighborhood environment. In April 2025, more than 50 volunteers planted native trees at Liney Ditch Park, a place used by many school-aged children for recess and recreation, as part of a local greening effort to create a buffer against industrial air pollution.^[56] That kind of work matters because it shows residents are not only reacting to environmental harm, but also building small-scale protections and reclaiming public space that has long been shaped by industrial burdens.^[57] The Center for Environmental Transformation’s Eco Explorers program also extends this work by teaching local students about environmental science and advocacy, helping them learn to understand and respond to conditions affecting their community.^[58] Together, these efforts show that environmental justice in Waterfront South is not only about challenging state authority and responding to pollution as it occurs, but also about creating healthier spaces and raising a new generation of community leaders and advocates.

            Overall, these examples show how community activism in Waterfront South has been both reactive and transformative. From the legal challenge to the St. Lawrence Cement facility to the protests against EMR Recycling, the Waterfront South community has repeatedly pushed back against decisions that treated its residents as disposable and its neighborhood as a place where air pollution could be accumulated. The community has also been able to demonstrate resilience through community engagement, environmental advocacy, and education, setting up the neighborhood for future success and good leadership from its youth. In this sense, Waterfront South residents have not simply endured environmental racism but have actively resisted it through legal action, protesting, and community organizing, even when the systems of power around them continued to place their neighborhood at risk for further pollution.

 VI. Conclusion

            In this paper, Aliya Jones was introduced as merely a victim of circumstance, enduring one of the most visible examples of the environmental burden that shapes life in Waterfront South: a massive industrial fire and the consequences to health and daily life that follow. However, Jones’s story also shows resistance and resilience. She has not only endured the fire’s aftermath but also spoken out as an advocate for her community, reminding readers that Waterfront South residents are not passive participants in their own story of environmental racism, but active challengers of injustice. Her experience is part of a larger story about how Waterfront South became an industrial sacrifice zone, how residents have fought back through activism and legal action, and why this neighborhood matters in a broader history of environmental injustice.

            This paper has shown that Waterfront South is an environmental justice case shaped by accumulation. The neighborhood’s pollution burden did not emerge from a single source, but rather from the combined effects of historical industrial development, regulatory neglect, and policy decisions that allowed polluting facilities to be concentrated in a low-income, working-class neighborhood, predominantly people of color. These conditions have forced residents to live with cumulative air pollution, elevated health risks, and long-term consequences of environmental racism, while requiring them to fight back through community activism and legal resistance.

            The story of Waterfront South also matters because it fits into a larger pattern and history of environmental racism and sacrifice zones in the United States. Communities like Cancer Alley in Louisiana and Warren County, North Carolina, reveal similar patterns: polluting industries and hazardous land uses are disproportionately placed in Black and low-income communities, while those communities must fight for recognition, protection, and basic health.^[59] Although New Jersey’s Environmental Justice Law offers hope and signals a meaningful step forward, Waterfront South still bears the legacy of decades of unequal exposure. Its future depends on whether the state and city finally treat residents as people entitled to clean air, good public health, and real decision-making power, not just a community expected to absorb harm without real protection.

^[1] Siobhan McGirl and Emily Rose Grassi, “Health Concerns, Questions Linger after Massive Junkyard Fire in Camden,” NBC10 Philadelphia, March 6, 2025, https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/camden-scrap-junkyard-fire-health-concerns/4127086/.

^[2] Quote is from: Sophia Schmidt, “‘It’s Hellish Now’: EMR Fire Leaves Camden Residents Worried about Health,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/emr-fire-camden-health-aftermath/. Data on evacuations if from: Sophia Schmidt, “South Camden Residents Demand Change from EMR after Scrapyard Fire,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-emr-scrapyard-fire-residents/. 

^[3] Sophia Schmidt, “‘It’s Hellish Now’: EMR Fire Leaves Camden Residents Worried about Health,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/emr-fire-camden-health-aftermath/.

^[4] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 8.

^[5]Data on number of contaminated sites if from: Jenalyz Serrata, “The Effects of Climate Change in Camden and Other Low-Income Communities,” South Jersey Climate News, April 17, 2025, https://sjclimate.news/5526/news/the-effects-of-climate-change-in-camden-and-other-low-income-communities/; cancer rates data is from: “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 26-28.

^[6] “Philadelphia: Downtown Camden,” Segregation by Design, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.segregationbydesign.com/philadelphia/downtown-camden.

^[7] Quote is from: “Philadelphia: Downtown Camden,” Segregation by Design, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.segregationbydesign.com/philadelphia/downtown-camden. Federal policy description is from: “The Affluent Society,” chapter, in The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, vol. 2 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2019), 290-293.

^[8] “The Affluent Society,” chapter, in The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, vol. 2 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2019), 290.

^[9] “Philadelphia: Downtown Camden,” Segregation by Design, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.segregationbydesign.com/philadelphia/downtown-camden.

^[10] “The Affluent Society,” essay, in The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, vol. 2 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2019), 292-294. 

^[11] “The Affluent Society,” essay, in The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, vol. 2 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2019), 290-294.

^[12] “The Affluent Society,” essay, in The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, vol. 2 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2019), 290-294.

^[13] “Harrison Avenue Landfill,” BRS Inc, February 5, 2021, https://brsinc.com/projects/harrison-avenue-landfill/.

^[14] “Cramer Hill Waterfront Park,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 11, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/nrr/restoration/completed-restoration-projects/cramer-hill-waterfront-park/. 

^[15] “Harrison Avenue Landfill,” BRS Inc, February 5, 2021, https://brsinc.com/projects/harrison-avenue-landfill/.

^[16] “Cramer Hill Waterfront Park,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 11, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/nrr/restoration/completed-restoration-projects/cramer-hill-waterfront-park/.

^[17] Nydia Han and Maia Rosenfeld, “Struggling to Breathe: Air Quality Injustices Put Neighbors in Two Local Towns at Risk,” 6abc Philadelphia, February 9, 2022, https://6abc.com/post/environment-inequity-race-racial-disparities/11152688/.

^[18] Samir Nichols, “Essay: Our National Reckoning on Race Must Include Environmental Justice,” WHYY, November 25, 2021, https://whyy.org/articles/our-national-reckoning-on-race-must-include-environmental-justice/.

^[19] Legal battle information is from: Olga Pomar, “Fighting for Air Shelterforce,” Shelterforce, November 1, 2002, https://shelterforce.org/2002/11/01/fighting-for-air/; operation started in 2001, as per International Cement Review, “St Lawrence Cement Group – Case Dismissed,” International Cement Review, April 4, 2006, https://www.cemnet.com/News/story/142084/st-lawrence-cement-group-case-dismissed.html.

^[20]  Priyanka Gounder, “How Cement and Concrete Manufacturing Impacts Air Quality?,” Oizom, August 30, 2025, https://oizom.com/how-cement-and-concrete-manufacturing-impacts-air-quality/. 

^[21] Olga Pomar, “Fighting for Air Shelterforce,” Shelterforce, November 1, 2002, https://shelterforce.org/2002/11/01/fighting-for-air/.

^[22] Olga Pomar, “Environmental Justice, Camden, and Title VI: Organizing and Litigation to Protect The Community,” Legal Services of New Jersey, accessed May 11, 2026, https://proxy.lsnj.org/rcenter/GetPublicDocument/Sites/Training/2022/Justice/OlgaPomarpresentation.pdf.

^[23] Information on the company and its location if from: “EMR Metal Recycling: Our History,” EMR, accessed May 11, 2026, http://emrgroup.com/about-us/our-history; acquisition of Camden Iron & Metal information is from: Andrew George, “Major Camden Project Gets 253m Incentive from Eda,” NJBIZ, September 14, 2015, https://njbiz.com/major-camden-project-gets-253m-incentive-from-eda/.

^[24] “EMR Group UK Home Page,” EMR, accessed May 11, 2026, https://uk.emrgroup.com/. 

^[25] Andrew George, “Major Camden Project Gets 253m Incentive from Eda,” NJBIZ, September 14, 2015, https://njbiz.com/major-camden-project-gets-253m-incentive-from-eda/.

^[26] Quote is from: “New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Reason for Application – EMR Advanced Recycling LLC” (Camden: NJDEP, March 31, 2023); description of complaints is from: Sophia Schmidt, “Camden Metal Recycler Whose Fire Caused Evacuations Had a History of Violations,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-scrapyard-fire-emr/.

^[27] Dates of fires is from: Sophia Schmidt, “Camden Metal Recycler Whose Fire Caused Evacuations Had a History of Violations,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-scrapyard-fire-emr/; Public nuisance complaint is from: Lisa J. Morelli and Alana V. Paccione, “FILED-Package-EMR-Public-Nuisance.Pdf ” (Camden: Superior Court of New Jersey, January 12, 2026). 

^[28] Sophia Schmidt, “Camden Metal Recycler Whose Fire Caused Evacuations Had a History of Violations,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-scrapyard-fire-emr/.

^[29] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 27-30.

^[30] Siobhan McGirl and Emily Rose Grassi, “Health Concerns, Questions Linger after Massive Junkyard Fire in Camden,” NBC10 Philadelphia, March 6, 2025, https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/camden-scrap-junkyard-fire-health-concerns/4127086/.

^[31] Sophia Schmidt, “‘It’s Hellish Now’: EMR Fire Leaves Camden Residents Worried about Health,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/emr-fire-camden-health-aftermath/.

^[32] Jenalyz Serrata, “The Effects of Climate Change in Camden and Other Low-Income Communities,” South Jersey Climate News, April 17, 2025, https://sjclimate.news/5526/news/the-effects-of-climate-change-in-camden-and-other-low-income-communities/.

^[33] Nydia Han and Maia Rosenfeld, “Struggling to Breathe: Air Quality Injustices Put Neighbors in Two Local Towns at Risk,” 6abc Philadelphia, February 9, 2022, https://6abc.com/post/environment-inequity-race-racial-disparities/11152688/.

^[34]  “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 28-29.

^[35] “Dictionary of Cancer Terms,” Comprehensive Cancer Information, accessed May 12, 2026, https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/risk-ratio.

^[36] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 27.

^[37] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 28.

^[38] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 30.

^[39] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 27-30.

^[40] “Global Atlas of Environmental Justice,” EJ Atlas, February 13, 2023, https://ejatlas.org/conflict/camden-new-jersey-usa.

^[41] Nydia Han and Maia Rosenfeld, “Struggling to Breathe: Air Quality Injustices Put Neighbors in Two Local Towns at Risk,” 6abc Philadelphia, February 9, 2022, https://6abc.com/post/environment-inequity-race-racial-disparities/11152688/.

^[42] Alvaro Carrascal et al., “The Cancer Burden in New Jersey” (American Cancer Society, New Jersey & New York, July 2012), A-8.

^[43] “Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project,” NJDEP, August 2005, https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/camden/docs/finalreport.pdf, 27-30.

^[44] “South Camden Citizens v. NJ Dept. of Environ., 145 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D.N.J. 2001),” Justia – U.S. Law, accessed May 12, 2026, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/145/.

^[45] Luke W. Cole and Caroline Farrell, “Structural Racism, Structural Pollution and the Need for a New Paradigm,” WashU Scholarly Repository, January 2006, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol20/iss1/9, 270-271.

^[46] Luke W. Cole and Caroline Farrell, “Structural Racism, Structural Pollution and the Need for a New Paradigm,” WashU Scholarly Repository, January 2006, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol20/iss1/9, 271-272.

^[47] “New Jersey Adopts Final EJ Rule on Cumulative Impacts,” The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), April 21, 2023, https://www.ecos.org/news-and-updates/new-jersey-adopts-final-ej-rule-on-cumulative-impacts/.

^[48] New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 14, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/ej/communities/.

^[49] “EJ Law Chapter 92” (Camden: NJDEP, n.d.), https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/docs/ej-law.pdf. 

^[50] “Victory: NJ Appellate Court Affirms Legality of Environmental Justice Law,” EarthJustice, January 5, 2026, https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/victory-nj-appellate-court-affirms-legality-of-environmental-justice-law.

^[51] Sophia Schmidt, “Van Collects Toxic Air Pollution Data on Camden Streets,” WHYY, April 3, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-toxic-air-pollution-new-jersey/.

^[52] Sophia Schmidt, “South Camden Residents Demand Change from EMR after Scrapyard Fire,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-emr-scrapyard-fire-residents/.

^[53] P. Kenneth Burns, “Camden Residents Concerned over Transparency in EMR Deal,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-emr-transparency-deal/.

^[54] Neill Borowski, “Don’t Approve EMR Deal, Camden Protestors Say, but City Council Gives Its OK” TAPinto Camden, August 13, 2025, https://www.tapinto.net/towns/camden/sections/government/articles/don-t-approve-emr-deal-camden-protestors-say-but-city-council-gives-its-ok.

^[55] Information on ordinance: P. Kenneth Burns, “Camden Residents Concerned over Transparency in EMR Deal,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/camden-emr-transparency-deal/; Agenda item passed without changes from: Neill Borowski, “Don’t Approve EMR Deal, Camden Protestors Say, but City Council Gives Its OK” TAPinto Camden, August 13, 2025, https://www.tapinto.net/towns/camden/sections/government/articles/don-t-approve-emr-deal-camden-protestors-say-but-city-council-gives-its-ok.

^[56] Tree planting date and itinerary from: Mahbubur Meenar, “Events 2025,” Community Planning + Visualization Lab, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.planviz.org/events-2025; children use this park for school recess, as noted in: Sophia Schmidt, “‘It’s Hellish Now’: EMR Fire Leaves Camden Residents Worried about Health,” WHYY, March 17, 2026, https://whyy.org/articles/emr-fire-camden-health-aftermath/.

^[57] “Greening Camden: Shelterbelt Tree Planting at Liney Ditch Park,” Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.ccmua.org/blog/greening-camden-shelterbelt-tree-planting-at-liney-ditch-park/.

^[58] “Eco Explorers Program,” Center for Environmental Transformation, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.cfet.org/.

^[59] Cancer Alley in Louisiana information: “Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ Is More Deadly Than Previously Imagined,” Bloomberg School of Public Health, August 4, 2025, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-shocking-hazards-of-louisianas-cancer-alley; Warren County, North Carolina information: Will Atwater, “NC Recognized as the Birthplace of the Environmental Justice Movement,” North Carolina Health News, August 26, 2022, https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2022/08/26/nc-recognized-as-the-birthplace-of-the-environmental-justice-movement/.

Primary Sources: