1. James Kreiger, Home is where the triggers are: Increasing asthma control by improving the home environment, 23 Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology 139-45 (2012).
2. James Krieger & Donna L. Higgins, Housing and health: time again for public health action, 92 American Journal of Public Health 758-68 (2002).
3. American Public Health Association, The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation (Washington, DC, American Public Health Association 2010).
4. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America, Issue Brief 1: Early Childhood Experiences: Laying the Foundation for Health Across a Lifetime (Princeton, NJ,
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 2008), available at http://www.commissiononhealth.org/PDF/095bea47-ae8e-4744-b054-258c9309b3d4/Issue%20Brief%201%20Jun%2008%20-%20Early%20Childhood%20
Experiences%20and%20Health.pdf.
5. National Research Council, Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment (Washington, DC, The National Academies Press 2011), available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13229.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Human Health Risk Assessment, http://epa.gov/riskassessment/health-risk.htm.
7. Health Impact Project, http://www.healthimpactproject.org/hia/us.
8. National Research Council, supra note 5.
9. Rajiv Bhatia & Aaron Wernham, Integrating Human Health into Environmental Impact Assessment: An Unrealized Opportunity for Environmental Health and Justice, 116 Environmental Health
Perspectives 991 (2008).
10. Health Impact Assessment: Concepts, Theory, Techniques and Applications (John Kemm et al. eds., Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press 2004).
11. World Health Organization, Health Impact Assessment, http://www.who.int/hia/examples/en/.
12. Aaron Wernham, Health Impact Assessments Are Needed In Decision Making About Environmental And Land-Use Policy, 30 Health Affairs 947 (2011); Andrew L. Dannenberg et al., Growing the
field of health impact assessment in the United States: an agenda for research and practice, 96 American Journal of Public Health 262 (2006).
13. See National Research Council, supra note 5. We began the research for this project prior to the publication of the Research Council’s definition of HIA and used the World Health
Organization’s (WHO) definition of HIA to frame our early research. WHO defines HIA as “a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged as
to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population,” available at http://www.who.int/hia/about/defin/en/index.html.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 6.
15. Some of the legal provisions listed in Table 2 may also refer to HES. Although there was not a consistent definition of HES, they appear to be similar to HRAs in that they typically
refer to an assessment of the biophysical effects of exposure to toxic or hazardous substances.
16. Or. Rev. Stat. § 616.020 (2009). In addition to any Oregon Health Authority survey, investigation, or inquiry authorized by law that involves the production, processing, or distribution
of agricultural products, the authority shall make such further surveys, investigations, or inquiries as may be requested by the director of agriculture for the purpose of showing the
manner in which the production, processing, or distribution of agricultural products may affect the public health.
17. Minn. Stat. § 144.05, available at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=144.05.
18. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 130061.5; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6C, § 33; Wash. Rev. Code § 47.01.406; Wash. Admin. Code §§ 173-460-090, 173-460-100.
19. Janet Collins & Jeffrey P. Koplan, Health Impact Assessment: A Step Toward Health in All Policies, 302 Journal of the American Medical Association 315 (2009).
20. Wash. Admin. Code §§ 173-460-090, 173-460-100. An applicant for approval to construct a new or modified unit emitting toxic air pollution who cannot demonstrate compliance using an
acceptable source impact level analysis (first tier) must submit a petition requesting that the Department of Ecology perform a second-tier or third-tier review to determine a means of
compliance. Such petition must include the development of a HIA protocol and the results of an HIA.
21. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 25301, 25302. At least every two years, the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission shall conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of
energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. It shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve
resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety.
22. N.Y. Energy Law § 6-104. The State Energy Planning Board’s energy plan shall include an assessment of the impacts of implementation of the plan upon economic development, health, safety
and welfare, environmental quality, and energy costs for consumers, specifically low-income consumers.
23. See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. §§ 52.34, .47, .79, .137, .157 (regarding federal regulations for nuclear plants); 10 C.F.R. §§ 150.31, 960.3-2-2-4 (regarding nuclear waste disposal); Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 25-11-203; 6 Colo. Code Regs. 1007-1; 32 Ill. Adm. Code 332.100; 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7130.308; 25 Pa. Code § 236.204; Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 401.113, .263; 30 Tex. Admin.
Code §§ 336.5. 513, .617, .1007.
24. 25 Pa. Code § 236.204. The content of a licensing application to possess and dispose of low-level radioactive materials must include a detailed assessment of the radiological and non-
radiological impacts to the public health and the environment along with a discussion of the long-term public health and environmental impacts, and social and economic impacts of the
regional disposal facility on the host and affected municipalities.
25. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(a)(3); 40 C.F.R. § 58.10.
26. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21; 18 Alaska Admin. Code 50.250; Me. Rev. Stat. 38 § 583(b); Mont. Admin. R. 17.8.807; Wash. Admin. Code § 173-400-118; Navajo Nation Code Ann. tit. 4, § 1117.
27. 405 Ky. Admin. Regs. 30:025. Applicants to the Energy and Environment Cabinet Department for Natural Resources for permits for the use of experimental practices in oil shale operations
must include information and plans to monitor and identify potential risks to environmental and public health and safety.
28. Or. Admin. R. 141-070-0110. The Division of State Lands may issue a surface entry permit to enter statelands to drill for oil or gas upon receipt and approval of an environmental
assessment including adverse effects on the human and natural resources of the area (e.g., scenic, recreational, public health, and plant and animal resources). The assessment will also
require a description of procedures the lessee will take to mitigate said impacts.
29. Seattle, Wash., Code § 23.84A.016. “High-impact use” means a business establishment that is considered to be dangerous or noxious due to the probability or magnitude of its effects on
the environment; or has the potential for causing major community or health impacts, including nuisance, odors, noise, or vibrations; or is so chemically intensive as to preclude site
selection without careful assessment of potential impacts and impact mitigation. The director of the Department of Planning and Development shall consult as necessary with the Seattle Fire
Department chief, the director of the Seattle-King County Health Department, and other local, state, regional, and federal agencies to determine when a business establishment shall be
regulated as a high-impact use.
30. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
31. See id. § 4332.
32. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000-21177; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 30 §§ 61-62H; Minn. Stat. §§ 116D.1 to -.11; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 to -324; N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§ 8-0101 to -
0117; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 113A-1 to -13; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 34-A-9-1 to -13; Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.10 et. seq.; Wash. Admin. Code § 197-11 et seq.
33. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000(b); Minn. Stat. § 116D.01; Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-103(2)(b); N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 8-0103(1); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-2; Wash. Rev. Code § 197-11-440(6)
(c)(ii).
34. N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law. §§ 8-0101 to -0117. The purpose of SEQRA is to maintain a quality environment for the people of this state that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the
senses and intellect of man now and in the future. To help achieve this goal, EISs must be prepared for state actions and address the environmental impact of the proposed action, including
short-term and longterm effects.
35. Riverhead Business Improvement District Management Ass’n v. Stark, 253 A.D. 2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1998).
36. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6C, § 33. The Department of Transportation established a healthy transportation compact, which requires HIAs to assess the effect of transportation projects on
public health and vulnerable populations and to institute a HIA for planners, transportation administrators, public health administrators, and developers to use to achieve positive health
outcomes.
37. Massachusetts Healthy Transportation Compact, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/main/healthytransportationcompact.aspx.
38. Wash. Rev. Code § 47.01.406. Development of State Route 520 bridge replacement and HOV project required a plan for addressing the impacts of the project on Seattle city neighborhoods,
parks, and institutions of higher education. In developing the plan, the mediator and planning staff incorporated recommendations of an HIA to calculate the project’s impact on air quality,
carbon emissions, and other public health issues.
39. 49 U.S.C. § 309.
40. 23 C.F.R. § 772.1.
41. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 99165. The Omnitrans Joint Powers Authority shall contract with an independent third party to prepare and submit to the legislature and governor a report on the
environmental and public health impacts of transit bus fueling stations located within the jurisdiction of the authority and owned or operated by the authority. In conducting the
assessment, the authority shall hold at least one public hearing (with advance notice) in the vicinity of each bus fueling station to solicit input from persons who may be affected by those
impacts.
42. CNG Fueling Station Environmental Impact Report, http://www.omnitrans.org/news/reports.shtml.
43. 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4709. The Low-Emissions Vehicle Commission shall complete a study that addresses whether adoption of the low-emissions vehicle program will result in a more cost-
effective reduction in ozone precursors than other alternative control strategies for mobile and stationary sources to achieve and maintain the NAAQS standards established by the Clean Air
Act. The study shall include the low-emissions vehicle program’s impact on economic development, future economic expansion, benefits to public health, welfare and environment, and the
fiscal impact on the consumer.
44. The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program, http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/cars/cleanvehicles.htm.
45. 7 U.S.C. § 2204(e); 7 C.F.R. §§ 2.29, 2.71.
46. See Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado, Regulatory Risk Assessment, 73 Fed. Reg. 54125 (Sept. 18, 2008); Refrigeration and
Labeling Requirements for Shell Eggs, 63 Fed. Reg. 45663 (Aug. 27, 1998); Transportation and Storage Requirements for Potentially Hazardous Foods, 61 Fed. Reg. 59372 (Nov. 22, 1996).
47. USDA Office of the Chief Economist, Risk Assessment, http://www.usda.gov/oce/risk_assessment/index.htm.
48. Minn. Stat. § 31.94. By November 15 of evennumbered years, the Department of Agriculture Commissioner and task force shall report on the status of organic agriculture to the legislative
policy and finance committees and divisions with jurisdiction over agriculture. The report must include available information, using currently reliable data, on the positive and negative
impacts of organic production on the environment and human health.
49. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-832. In developing sustainable local food programs and policies for North Carolina, the North Carolina Sustainable Local Food Advisory Council may consider an in-
depth assessment of the foods that are served to public school students, an in-depth analysis of the possibility of making sustainable local food available under public assistance programs,
and an in-depth analysis of the possibility of promoting urban gardens and backyard gardens for the purpose of improving the health of citizens.
50. 505 Ill. Comp. Stat. 82/10. Researchers and other program participants under the Food and Agriculture Research Act shall investigate short- and longterm environmental, health, social,
economic, and natural resource implications of products, practices, and systems proposed for use in food and agricultural enterprises.
51. 505 Ill. Comp. Stat. 82/20. Universities receiving funding via the Food and Agriculture Research Act shall work closely with the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research to
support a broad program of food and agricultural research, including research on natural resources, environmental, economic, nutritional, and social impacts of agricultural systems, human
and animal health, and the concerns of consumers of food and agricultural products and services.
52. Or. Rev. Stat. § 616.020. In addition to any Oregon Health Authority survey, investigation, or inquiry authorized by law that involves the production, processing, or distribution of
agricultural products, the authority shall make such further surveys, investigations, or inquiries as may be requested by the director of agriculture for the purpose of showing the manner
in which the production, processing, or distribution of agricultural products may affect the public health.
53. Association of Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 168 Cal. App. 4th 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
54. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40724.6.
55. 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.2050, .2895.
56. 401 Ky. Admin. Regs. 47:180; 06-096 Me. Code R. § 401; 310 Mass. Code Regs. 19.030; N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, § 360-1.15.
57. 25 Pa. Code §§ 271.127, 287.127 (specifically including traffic, aesthetics, air quality, water quality, stream flow, fish and wildlife, plants, aquatic habitat, threatened or
endangered species, water use, land use, and municipal waste plans).
58. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 363.069. A feasibility study of regional and local solid waste management plans evaluates alternatives in terms of their public health, physical, social,
economic, fiscal, environmental, and aesthetic implications.
59. N.Y.C., N.Y. Admin. Code, tit. 16, ch. 1, § 16-134.
60. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10132, 10155, 10193, 10195, 10197.
61. See id. § 10155(c)(1).
62. 62 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (challenging 42 U.S.C. § 2021e(d)(2)(c), the “take title” provision regarding low-level radioactive waste, as violating the Tenth
Amendment of the Constitution).
63. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 32, §§ 601.100, .240.
64. N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 6, §§ 383-6.9, -6.10.
65. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 130061. If a hospital cannot afford required seismic safety improvements and seeks relief, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development must
determine through an HIA that the removal of the building or buildings from service may significantly diminish the availability or accessibility of health care services to an underserved
community.
66. Executive Order 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735, 51741 (Oct. 4, 1993).
67. Executive Order 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994), as amended by Executive Order 12948 (Jan. 30, 1995).
68. Executive Order 13045, 62 Fed. Reg. 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997), as amended by Executive Orders 13229 (Oct. 9, 2001) and 13296 (Apr. 18, 2003).
69. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 43.20.025, .270, .285.
70. Washington State Board of Health, Health Impact Reviews, http://www.sboh.wa.gov/HIR/.
71. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 147.100. The Governor’s cabinet may make maps, planning studies, and surveys relating to subjects affecting general health and welfare, including zoning, soil
conditions, land use and classification, population distribution, schools, park and playground development, port, harbor and waterway work, parkways, highways, traffic, transit, water
supply, drainage and sewerage, longrange financial programs, real property inventories, tax maps, building and housing conditions, and subdivision control.
72. Navajo Nation Code Ann. tit. 10, § 107; Navajo Nation Code Ann. tit. 2, § 1803.
73. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 582.30. The community planning and economic development department is directed to commence a study of the impact of electronic and digital
billboards on public health, safety, and welfare in light of existing regulation and to propose such amendments to the zoning code or other regulations that the planning division deems
necessary and advisable.
74. 505 Ill. Comp. Stat. 82/10. Researchers and other program participants under the Food and Agriculture Research Act shall investigate short- and long-term environmental, health, social,
economic, and natural resource implications of products, practices, and systems proposed for use in food and agricultural enterprises.
75. Or. Rev. Stat. § 616.020. In addition to any Oregon Health Authority survey, investigation, or inquiry authorized by law that involves the production, processing, or distribution of
agricultural products, the authority shall make such further surveys, investigations, or inquiries as may be requested by the director of agriculture for the purpose of showing the manner
in which the production, processing, or distribution of agricultural products may affect the public health.
76. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 99165. The Omnitrans Joint Powers Authority shall contract with an independent third party to prepare and submit to the legislature and governor a report on the
environmental and public health impacts of transit bus fueling stations located within the jurisdiction of the authority and owned or operated by the authority. In conducting the
assessment, the authority shall hold at least one public hearing (with advance notice) in the vicinity of each bus fueling station to solicit input from persons who may be affected by those
impacts.
77. 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4709, available at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.047.009.000.HTM.
78. Joan E. Drake, The NEPA Process—What Do We Need to Do and When? at 1, 4 (Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation 2006).
79. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 §§ 202, 204, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4342, 4344 (2011).
80. See id. § 102(c), 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2011).
81. Aaron Wernham, Building a Statewide Health Impact Assessment Program: A Case Study from Alaska, 16 Northwest Public Health 16 (2009).
82. Id.
83. Bhatia & Wernham, supra note 9, at 991, 995.
84. 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a).
85. Bhatia & Wernham, supra note 9, at 991, 995.
86. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (emphasis added).
87. Id. § 4331 (emphasis added).
88. Bhatia & Wernham, supra note 9, at 991, 995.
89. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1).
90. George Cameron Coggins et al., Federal Public Land and Resources Law 248 (6th ed. 2007).
91. Drake, supra note 78, at 1, 4.
92. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b) (emphasis added).
93. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000-21177; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 30, §§ 61-62H; Minn. Stat. §§ 116D.01 to .11; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 75-1-101 to -324; N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§ 8-0101 to -
0117; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 113A-1 to -13; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 34A-9-1 to -13; Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.10 et seq.
94. Kenneth S. Weiner, NEPA and State NEPAs: Learning from the Past, Foresight for the Future, 39 Environmental Law Reporter 10675, 10677 (2009).
95. 40 C.F.R. § 79.62 (2011).
96. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49-480.04 (emphasis added). Under county air pollutant programs, owners of new sources of air pollutants must conduct risk management analysis that includes
health assessments and health studies, and report to the county board of supervisors.
97. See, e.g., “Case Law—Court approves or notes conduct of HA or admits results of HAs into evidence” on page 8 and “Case law requiring conduct of HRAs” on page 23 of Table 2.
98. See, e.g., Vill. of DePue v. ExxonMobil Corp., 537 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir. Ill. 2008); Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003); ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. Nicoletti Oil,
Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100460 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2010).
99. See, e.g., Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal v. Ark. Pollution Control & Ecology Comm’n, 354 Ark. 563 (Ark. 2003) (using an HRA to demonstrate that the expected emissions of a chemical
weapons disposal facility are not expected to be materially injurious, precluding a challenge to the permits granted to build the facility); United States v. Newmont USA Ltd., 504 F. Supp.
2d 1077 (E.D. Wash. 2007) (admitting a remedial investigation/feasibility study, which included an HRA, into evidence so defendant could prove that certain costs incurred in performing the
study might be duplicative or unnecessary).
100. City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 896 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
101. In re Winona County Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, 442 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
102. United States v. Sunoco, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 566 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
103. Other provisions in the ( ) category included instances in which a law or court expressly states that an HA would not be required in certain circumstances. See Cal Food & Agric. Code §
13128 (2011) (stating that an applicant registering a pesticide does not have to submit or cite mandatory health effect data about a purchased pesticide when the applicant has purchased a
registered pesticide from another producer to formulate the purchased pesticide into a new pesticide); Citizens v. City of Port Angeles, 151 P.3d 1079 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (finding that
fluoridation of public water supplies was categorically exempt from review under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act); Cingular Wireless v. Thurston County, 129 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct.
App. 2006) (denying consideration of testimony by citizens concerned about the adverse health impacts of radiofrequency [RF] emissions relating to a cellular phone tower because the Federal
Telecommunications Act expressly prohibits local officials from basing land use decisions on fears about RF emissions when proposed wireless communication facilities comply with FCC RF
exposure limits).
104. Federal legislation, regulations, or cases preempt state law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. There are three primary types of
legislative preemption: (1) express preemption, which occurs when the legislation itself clearly states Congress’s intent to preempt state law in the area regulated, (2) field preemption,
where Congress has reserved an entire area for federal jurisdiction and state law attempts to intrude into the area, and (3) conflict preemption, where the state law at issue cannot be
complied with while also complying with federal law regulating the conduct at issue. Friberg v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 267 F.3d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 2001).
105. Vill. of DePue v. ExxonMobil Corp., 537 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir. Ill. 2008) (holding that a municipality’s attempt to hasten a cleanup ordered by the State of Illinois by declaring a
polluted site a nuisance and imposing a fine of $750 per day until the cleanup was completed was preempted by state law).
106. Ass’n of Am. R.R. v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65685 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2007).
107. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, 212 (1983).
108. Northern States Power Co. v. Prairie Island Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community, 781 F. Supp. 612 (D. Minn. 1991).
109. Ass’n of Am. R.R. v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65685 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2007); Vill. of DePue v. ExxonMobil Corp., 537 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir. Ill.
2008).
110. Andrew L. Dannenberg et al., Use of Health Impact Assessment in the U.S.: 27 Case Studies, 1999-2007, 34 American Journal of Preventive Medicine 241, 244-53 (2008).
111. Health Impact Project, Case Studies, http://www.healthimpactproject.org/resources#case.
112. Health Impact Project, Case Study: East Bay Greenway, http://www.healthimpactproject.org/resources/case-study-east-bay-greenway.
113. Health Impact Project, Case Study: Atlanta’s BeltLine, http://www.healthimpactproject.org/resources/case-study-atlantas-beltline.
114. Wernham, supra note 12, at 947.
115. 83 Am. Jur. 2d Zoning and Planning § 11 (2011).
116. Institute of Medicine, The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century, at 2 (Nov. 11, 2002), http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/The-Future-ofthe-Publics-Health-in-the-21st-
Century.aspx.
117. National Prevention Council, National Prevention Strategy, at 6 (June 2011), http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/nphpphc/strategy/report.pdf.
118. The Network for Public Health Law, http://www.networkforphl.org/.
