For decades, United States Representative Hal Rogers has worked to bring a new federal prison to his district in eastern Kentucky—specifically, at the site of a former coal mine in Letcher County. In September 2022, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced a plan to build a medium-security facility on the site—a win for Rogers. Local groups have been fighting the move, arguing that, in addition to the environmental health risks the site poses, another prison is unnecessary and a waste of public dollars. Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Letcher would be the fifth federal prison in eastern Kentucky alone and would cost the public $500 million.

The proposed site has already been devastated by mountaintop mining, which is considered one of the most destructive ways to mine coal because it contaminates the air and waterways, destroys forests, and increases the risk of flooding. Local activists have said constructing a new prison would cause further damage and emit thousands of pounds of greenhouse gases.

The BOP’s own environmental impact statement notes that the construction and operation of FCI Letcher may lead to more stormwater runoff, which could harm the environment, pollute waterways and wetlands, and cause flooding. According to the statement, the BOP’s plan “incorporates measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to the extent practicable.”

Toxic prisons

In Kentucky and across the country, prisons are frequently built in the cheapest and most undesirable locations, which often means land that is on or near toxic waste—a practice that takes “life-threatening tolls on human health.” As a result, people who are incarcerated are regularly exposed to water and air pollution in facilities located on or near toxic wastelands, such as coal ash sites and landfills, leading to serious long-term health consequences, including respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Lacking any agency over their exposure to hazardous conditions, incarcerated people are more likely to be exposed to environmental harms than the overall population.

Corrections staff and people who visit incarcerated family members at these facilities are also exposed to hazardous conditions. However, they have ways to mitigate risks that people who are incarcerated do not. For example, in facilities where the drinking water is contaminated, corrections officers have been given bottled water, while those incarcerated frequently report having to drink brown water, water that smells and tastes of sewage and sulfur, water that contains sediment, and water that’s laden with arsenic.

A recent report found that nearly half of U.S. prisons draw water from sources likely contaminated with toxic “forever chemicals” linked to cancer, kidney disease, and other serious health issues. Research also shows how prisons are sources of toxic waste and worsen pollution. Incarcerated people consequently experience grave health issues, including extreme lead poisoning and cancer.

In fact, 32 percent of state and federal prisons are located within three miles of federal Superfund sites—contaminated manufacturing facilities, processing plants, landfills, mines, or other sites that pose serious risks to human health and the environment.

Take, for example, the infamous Louisiana State Penitentiary—commonly called “Angola” after the plantation that once occupied the same site—which has been criticized repeatedly for its ruthless conditions. The facility is located in “Cancer Alley,” a stretch of land where rates of cancer caused by air pollution exceed the federal government’s limits of acceptable risk. The area contains around 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities.

The proposed federal prison in Letcher County isn’t the only one in the state that would be located near a former mining site. In Kentucky, the decline of the coal industry has led to the expansion of the carceral state, as lawmakers have unwisely turned to the criminal legal system as a source of job creation and economic development. Their misguided decisions to build prisons have created environmental harm and severe health consequences for incarcerated people. Further, research suggests no relation between prison building and positive economic effects. For example, three Kentucky counties—Clay, Marin, and McCreary—have had federal prisons for decades yet remain among the state’s poorest counties.

It's not only people in prison who are vulnerable to environmental hazards, but also those in jail awaiting their day in court. After all, New York City’s largest jail, Rikers Island, sits atop a former landfill. A Grist analysis of jails in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City found that people within or surrounding the majority of these facilities were at heightened risk of pollution-related cancer, respiratory hazards, and diesel pollution exposure. The facilities were also generally located near toxic wastewater and hazardous waste sites.

Moreover, the abysmal state of health care in prisons and jails means that when incarcerated people are exposed to pollutants or bacteria, they can face far worse outcomes—even when health issues should be entirely treatable.

Mass incarceration and climate change

Climate change poses additional and ever-mounting risks to people in prison as they endure increasingly extreme temperatures and worsening storms. In Texas prisons—many of which lack air conditioning—temperatures now regularly surpass 115°F. During past hurricanes, incarcerated people have consistently been left behind—even when they are located within mandatory evacuation zones—and gone without food and water for weeks.

There’s copious documentation on how climate change poses mounting risks to incarcerated people. Increasingly, researchers are also examining how mass incarceration contributes to climate change. One 2020 study found that increased numbers of people in state prisons were associated with increased industrial carbon dioxide emissions, the most significant contributor to climate change. Researchers noted that an increase in the state prison incarceration rate from 200 to 1,200 per 100,000 residents is associated with a 0.48 percent increase in a state’s carbon dioxide emissions.

“This study stands out by demonstrating that carceral facilities actually produce environmental risks and one of the biggest global risks of all—climate change,” David Pellow, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and head of the Global Environmental Justice Project, told Future Human.

Stop spending on “death-making institutions”

Elected leaders and corrections officials can take steps to ensure that incarcerated people are not exposed to environmental health hazards. The Environmental Health in Prisons Act, introduced in Congress earlier this month, directs the BOP and other relevant agencies to publish data on key environmental metrics—including air and water quality, temperature, and contagious diseases—at federal facilities. The legislation creates greater transparency with the aim of improving environmental health outcomes for incarcerated people and corrections staff.

We need stronger government regulations and civilian oversight at the federal and state levels. But the only real solution is to end our overreliance on incarceration.

Letcher County organizers are all too familiar with the proclivity of local officials and the BOP to build new prisons—despite a declining federal prison population. Residents say the money to build FCI Letcher would be better spent addressing the county’s housing, health care, and infrastructure needs.

“We want to get that money reappropriated in Congress . . . to be invested in Appalachia in life-giving institutions and not in these death-making institutions,” Jordan E. Martinez-Mazurek, co-founder of the Campaign to Fight Toxic Prisons, which built a coalition to organize against a new prison, told Prism.

Continuing to build new facilities—like FCI Letcher—and funneling millions more dollars into mass incarceration is not a path forward.