When it comes to stopping a cell tower project, most communities assume that health and environmental concerns should be front and center. However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) severely limits the ability of local governments and citizens to block towers based on health-related arguments. This has created an environment where standard pleas about property values, aesthetics, or even potential health effects often fall on deaf ears.
Yet, a recent case in Navajo County, Arizona, shows there’s another way—one that may be uniquely effective for communities looking to keep cell towers away from sensitive areas such as schools, playgrounds, or neighborhoods with special health considerations. In the Snowflake case, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) successfully denied a cell tower permit not by citing traditional health concerns, but by leveraging the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related civil rights laws.
This approach is a breakthrough in cell tower disputes because it highlights a critical legal angle the TCA does not override: disability rights. While the TCA forbids considering environmental or health effects from radiofrequency (RF) emissions, it does not erase other federal obligations, especially the duty to reasonably accommodate individuals protected under the ADA.
Below, we’ll explain how this strategy works, why the Snowflake case is so instructive, and what steps your community can take to assert similar arguments—especially if a tower is proposed near a school or an area where children and vulnerable populations could be disproportionately affected.
The Snowflake Case: A Brief Recap
In Snowflake, Arizona, a proposed 120-foot cell tower threatened the peace and well-being of an Environmentally Ill (EI) Community—people with severe sensitivities to chemicals and electromagnetic fields. Residents argued that placing a tower near them would not just be uncomfortable; it could be life-threatening, effectively forcing them out of their homes and the environment that allowed them to function without severe symptoms.
During the hearings, the community did not focus on generic health fears, but on established disability protections. Individuals with electromagnetic sensitivities had already received disability accommodations from the county. Approving the tower would effectively “undo” these accommodations and discriminate against them as a protected class under the ADA. Forced relocation or harm to a disabled population is a serious civil rights issue.
The Board of Supervisors recognized these legal implications. They understood that while the TCA bars denying a tower for health reasons, it does not remove the county’s obligation to comply with the ADA. By grounding their decision in disability rights and the non-discrimination principles that protect vulnerable populations, the BOS found a legally sound reason to reject the tower. This argument stood independent of any forbidden health-based rationale.
Why ADA and Civil Rights Arguments Are Powerful
- Federal Law Supremacy:
The ADA is federal law, enacted to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to public services and spaces. Local governments are bound to comply with the ADA. The TCA and the ADA are separate federal statutes, and neither was designed to nullify the other. If approving a tower would discriminate against or fail to accommodate a known group of disabled persons, that action could violate civil rights laws, no matter what the TCA says. - Protected Classes Matter:
The ADA recognizes certain health conditions and sensitivities as disabling conditions if they significantly limit major life activities. If individuals in your community can establish that they have a disability related to RF sensitivity or another impairment worsened by EMFs, they become a protected class. Under civil rights law, public entities (like school boards or county supervisors) must take these disabilities into account. - Reasonable Accommodations Requirement:
The ADA mandates that public entities provide “reasonable accommodations” so that disabled individuals can access public services and enjoy their communities. Approving a new source of harm—like a cell tower that creates an unsafe environment for these individuals—is at odds with providing such accommodations. Denying the tower or moving it to a safer distance can be seen as a necessary accommodation to ensure equality and non-discrimination.
Applying the Snowflake Strategy Near Schools
Most communities worry about cell towers near schools because children are considered more vulnerable. While the TCA blocks arguments framed as “we are worried about our children’s health,” it doesn’t stop communities from highlighting students or staff members who may have recognized disabilities worsened by EMF exposure. Consider the following steps:
- Identify Vulnerable Populations:
Is there anyone in the school community—students, teachers, administrative staff, or nearby residents—who has a medically recognized condition that can be aggravated by EMFs? These might include diagnosed electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), severe chemical sensitivities, certain neurological conditions, or disabilities that make the person susceptible to environmental changes. - Document Disabilities and Accommodations:
Work with affected individuals to obtain medical documentation, past accommodations made by the school or district, and any ADA-related services they currently receive. If the school has previously provided special classroom environments, disability-related modifications, or scheduling adjustments, this strengthens the argument that these individuals are recognized as needing protection and accommodation. - Public Testimony and Expert Opinions:
During hearings or public comment periods, have individuals testify about their conditions and explain how the cell tower’s presence would directly harm them. Medical professionals and ADA experts can bolster these claims by explaining that failing to prevent the tower is a form of discrimination. Show how the ADA applies and why the school district or local government must consider these legal obligations. - Framing the Argument to Decision Makers:
Emphasize that approving the tower would violate not just a moral obligation but a legal one. The TCA may limit the use of health arguments related to RF emissions, but it does not override the ADA’s non-discrimination mandate. Decision makers must understand that denying the tower is, in fact, a reasonable accommodation for protected individuals—something they are legally required to provide. - Legal Counsel and Support:
Engaging a lawyer familiar with disability law, civil rights, and ADA compliance can help shape a compelling case. An attorney can ensure that the argument is framed properly, referencing the ADA’s exact language, past case law, and the interplay of these statutes. This can give officials the confidence that denying the tower won’t lead to losing a legal battle—it may actually prevent one.
Moving Beyond Health: The Power of a Civil Rights Lens
The Snowflake case teaches us that the strict limitations of the TCA aren’t insurmountable. While you can’t deny a tower simply because of general health concerns about RF emissions, you can—and should—deny it if it violates the rights of disabled individuals. This reframing shifts the conversation from “health fears” to “civil rights obligations.”
This strategy applies especially well near schools, where safeguarding a safe environment for children is paramount. If even one student or staff member with a recognized disability is put at risk by the tower’s presence, the local government or school board may have to think twice. Their legal duty is clear: the ADA requires public entities to ensure equal access and non-discrimination. Endangering or driving away a disabled individual violates this principle.
The Path Forward
Communities seeking to protect their schools and neighborhoods from intrusive cell towers can learn from the Snowflake precedent:
- Identify ADA-protected individuals or groups who would be adversely affected by a tower.
- Gather documentation, testimonies, and expert opinions linking the tower’s approval to a civil rights violation.
- Engage legal counsel to ensure the arguments are presented correctly and to reassure decision makers that denying the tower is legally defensible.
- Publicly emphasize that the TCA does not negate civil rights law and that local authorities remain obligated to honor ADA protections.
By following these steps, you can convert what often feels like a no-win scenario into an effective legal stance. This approach isn’t just about blocking a tower. It’s about demanding that all federal laws, not just the TCA, be respected. Communities have a right to ensure that technology deployment does not trample over the needs and rights of the most vulnerable members of society.
Conclusion
The Snowflake case offers a powerful blueprint for communities across America. While the TCA constrains health-based arguments, the ADA opens a door to meaningful, enforceable protections. By reframing the debate around civil rights, equal access, and reasonable accommodations, your community can assert a legally sound argument against cell towers proposed near schools.
This strategy ensures that it’s not about fear or speculation—it’s about protecting disabled individuals, respecting their legal rights, and reminding local governments that their obligations under the ADA cannot be overridden by the wireless industry’s interests. In a challenging legal landscape, the ADA provides a critical key to safeguarding our children and communities from unwanted and potentially harmful towers.
