RESOLUTION-LESS CONFLICT AND SHIFTING ALIGNMENTS IN MUNICIPAL AIR TOXICS DISPUTES: THE CASE OF HOUSTON UNDER THE WHITE ADMINISTRATION, 2004–2009

Convinced that state and national regulatory bodies were not doing enough to control airborne toxic pollution, the City of Houston, Texas, led by a newly elected Mayor, implemented an aggressive pollution-reduction campaign from 2004–2008. The City provoked controversy over the presence and extent of an air toxics problem in Houston, first, by contesting the meaning of available scientific evidence, and then, by advocating for more stringent regulatory controls to address it. The controversy involved many different participants, and a shift from their ex ante consensus, as each was moved to support its claims with analyses and re-interpretations of scientific evidence. The City's attempt to expand its role in the regulation of air toxics, in large part through discursive means, met with considerable resistance and prompted realignments among participants. This case study examines how this came about, highlights the unorthodox features of the dispute and accounts for the absence of a conventional consensus-based resolution.