PERCEIVED RISK AND THE SITING OF A CONTROVERSIAL ...

wastewater treatment plant in their neighborhood positively. In fact, such processing
plants are perceived as risky (Beder, 1993; Fox, 2011; Kelly, 2011; Talbert, 2008). The
literature confirms that waste water treatment plants adversely affect discharge-receiving
waterways and aquatic species through the addition of nutrients and chemicals that
disrupt endocrine systems (Barigozzi & Levaggi, 2010; Caplin & Leahy, 2001;
Loewenstein, 1987; Slovic, 1987; Starr, 1969), but there have been no published studies
on the effect of wastewater treatment plants on local property values or residential
attractiveness. Unlike hazardous waste facility siting, very little research has been done
on the psychological, environmental, and social effects of the siting of non-hazardous,
wastewater facilities in communities. Common concerns include offensive odors, health
effects, disrupting noises, reduced property values, increased traffic, raw sewage spills,
fish kills, degradation of recreational waters, and the disposal of toxic chemicals into
local waterways.
Each of these issues was raised by the Bull Hide Creek Clear Water Alliance, an
organization composed of people opposing the Bull Hide Creek plant, as well as other
stakeholders. The members of the opposition also publicly complained that they were the
victims of political disenfranchisement, environmental injustice, and a state
environmental protection agency (TCEQ) that failed to comply with its own guidelines
(Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2009). The proponents of the plant
argued that each of these issues was being addressed and not only did the plant pose no
risk to the Bull Hide creek community, it would be a benefit to the community and the
“quality” of the creek would improve due to increased stream flow. During the 22 month
5