Sunday, August 08, 2004
Governor and Air Quality in Central Valley
Plan to scrap air board angers some
Review team may kill Air Resources Board and nearly 120 others.
Fresno Bee Article
By Jennifer M. FitzenbergerBee Capitol Bureau
SACRAMENTO -- A plan generated by Gov. Schwarzenegger to eliminate the California Air Resources Board has shaken clean-air advocates who fear standards will slip without the board's oversight.
The California Performance Review team wants to eliminate nearly 120 boards and commissions. Perhaps no recommendation has sparked as much criticism as the one to abolish the Air Resources Board.
Team leaders say folding the board into the California Environmental Protection Agency would save money, create more accountability and intensify the scrutiny of new ideas to clean the state's dirty air.
But air officials say elimination of the board would threaten the stability of California's systematic fight against air pollution at a time when the state harbors some of the grimiest air basins in the country.
"There's no reason to do it," said John White, representing the Sierra Club. "It doesn't accomplish any particular important objective other than save a little bit of salary."
Schwarzenegger created the California Performance Review team in February, putting 275 state employees and volunteers to work analyzing nearly every state program and process. Its mission is to find ways to streamline government and save money.
The team presented its 2,500-page report last week to Schwarzenegger, who said he would study the suggestions and get public comment. The governor said he would take ideas he likes to the Legislature and possibly the ballot.
Public hearings on broad categories of recommendations begin Friday in Riverside, where Californians will give their input on ways to make the state's infrastructure more efficient. A hearing in Fresno on Sept. 17 will cover the EPA and conservation, including the proposed elimination of the Air Resources Board.
Dissolving the Air Resources Board would, at a minimum, save about $250,000 per year on member stipends and travel. That money could be used to boost clean-air efforts such as the Carl Moyer Program, which helps replace and retrofit dirty diesel farm engines, said Chris Reynolds, who headed the team's resource conservation and protection group.
If every recommendation in the report is enacted, the state could save $32 billion in the next five years, team members project.
The state Legislature created the Air Resources Board in 1967 to combat air pollution that, in some parts of California, was getting out of control. Cities were growing, but motor vehicle pollution was virtually uncontrolled.
"It was getting so bad, especially in Los Angeles, that people couldn't see across the street, the smog was so thick," said Gennet Paauwe, a spokeswoman for the board.
The Air Resources Board has made several landmark clean-air decisions. In 1976, it started limiting lead in gasoline, and phased it out by 1992.
In 1996, the board set rules to reduce toxins in gasoline, cutting emissions equivalent to that produced by 3.5 million cars from the air. In 1998, it listed particulate matter in diesel exhaust as something that can cause cancer, and since has worked to clean up heavy-duty diesel engines that spew the microscopic specks into the air.
The 11-member board now oversees 35 local air districts, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and is responsible for protecting public health from the dangers of air pollution. It meets once a month and has a $150 million budget.
Five board members are experts in fields ranging from medicine to law, and five are elected officials who represent different parts of the state. The chairman, Alan Lloyd, is a scientist with a long resume of environmental work.
But having an independent board, Reynolds said, hinders accountability and efficiency. He said a centralized office would make it easier for the state to consider how proposed air rules would affect water, soil, plants and animals.
Under the plan, the Air Resources Board and five other divisions of the EPA ranging from waste management to pesticide regulation would be rolled into one administrative office.
"We don't want to undermine or harm any program that's working in California," Reynolds said. "Air-quality programs, in many people's [opinions], have been on the cutting edge. The intent is not to slow that progress."
Air-quality advocates, though, say the Air Resources Board structure not only works but is a model system. "The Air Resources Board is the most successful environmental regulatory agency in the world," said White of the Sierra Club.
State Sen. Dean Florez, who pushed through five new clean-air laws last year, said the board is a critical tool in keeping tabs on mobile sources of pollution. Eliminating it, he said, "would be disastrous."
"That would be a step backward," said Florez, D-Shafter, adding that he plans to testify at the California Performance Review hearing in Fresno.
The board's makeup gives it continuity and institutional memory, said Kevin Hall, a Sierra Club member in Fresno. Members are appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate.
"If we lose any state oversight and delegate that upstream to the EPA or downstream to local air districts, Valley residents lose," Hall said. "Elimination of the [board] or a reduction in its authority would serve private industry and hurt public health."
Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of governmental relations for the American Lung Association of California, said the board structure preserves the public's right to give input.
Public access also is a concern for Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno. But, if the alternative allows business interests to have their say, Cunha said he would feel better about the suggestion.
Farmers are clashing with air officials over new rules that affect their industry.
"If [the board was] removed tomorrow, would I have severe heartburn and pains? The answer is no," Cunha said. "But I want to see what they would replace it with."
Reynolds said the reorganization would not eliminate the public hearing process. Most issues that require tough decisions are fully discussed before the board hears them, he said.
Public participation is necessary, but "at the same time accountability is essential to democracy," Reynolds said. "When everyone is in charge, no one is responsible."
Review team may kill Air Resources Board and nearly 120 others.
Fresno Bee Article
By Jennifer M. FitzenbergerBee Capitol Bureau
SACRAMENTO -- A plan generated by Gov. Schwarzenegger to eliminate the California Air Resources Board has shaken clean-air advocates who fear standards will slip without the board's oversight.
The California Performance Review team wants to eliminate nearly 120 boards and commissions. Perhaps no recommendation has sparked as much criticism as the one to abolish the Air Resources Board.
Team leaders say folding the board into the California Environmental Protection Agency would save money, create more accountability and intensify the scrutiny of new ideas to clean the state's dirty air.
But air officials say elimination of the board would threaten the stability of California's systematic fight against air pollution at a time when the state harbors some of the grimiest air basins in the country.
"There's no reason to do it," said John White, representing the Sierra Club. "It doesn't accomplish any particular important objective other than save a little bit of salary."
Schwarzenegger created the California Performance Review team in February, putting 275 state employees and volunteers to work analyzing nearly every state program and process. Its mission is to find ways to streamline government and save money.
The team presented its 2,500-page report last week to Schwarzenegger, who said he would study the suggestions and get public comment. The governor said he would take ideas he likes to the Legislature and possibly the ballot.
Public hearings on broad categories of recommendations begin Friday in Riverside, where Californians will give their input on ways to make the state's infrastructure more efficient. A hearing in Fresno on Sept. 17 will cover the EPA and conservation, including the proposed elimination of the Air Resources Board.
Dissolving the Air Resources Board would, at a minimum, save about $250,000 per year on member stipends and travel. That money could be used to boost clean-air efforts such as the Carl Moyer Program, which helps replace and retrofit dirty diesel farm engines, said Chris Reynolds, who headed the team's resource conservation and protection group.
If every recommendation in the report is enacted, the state could save $32 billion in the next five years, team members project.
The state Legislature created the Air Resources Board in 1967 to combat air pollution that, in some parts of California, was getting out of control. Cities were growing, but motor vehicle pollution was virtually uncontrolled.
"It was getting so bad, especially in Los Angeles, that people couldn't see across the street, the smog was so thick," said Gennet Paauwe, a spokeswoman for the board.
The Air Resources Board has made several landmark clean-air decisions. In 1976, it started limiting lead in gasoline, and phased it out by 1992.
In 1996, the board set rules to reduce toxins in gasoline, cutting emissions equivalent to that produced by 3.5 million cars from the air. In 1998, it listed particulate matter in diesel exhaust as something that can cause cancer, and since has worked to clean up heavy-duty diesel engines that spew the microscopic specks into the air.
The 11-member board now oversees 35 local air districts, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and is responsible for protecting public health from the dangers of air pollution. It meets once a month and has a $150 million budget.
Five board members are experts in fields ranging from medicine to law, and five are elected officials who represent different parts of the state. The chairman, Alan Lloyd, is a scientist with a long resume of environmental work.
But having an independent board, Reynolds said, hinders accountability and efficiency. He said a centralized office would make it easier for the state to consider how proposed air rules would affect water, soil, plants and animals.
Under the plan, the Air Resources Board and five other divisions of the EPA ranging from waste management to pesticide regulation would be rolled into one administrative office.
"We don't want to undermine or harm any program that's working in California," Reynolds said. "Air-quality programs, in many people's [opinions], have been on the cutting edge. The intent is not to slow that progress."
Air-quality advocates, though, say the Air Resources Board structure not only works but is a model system. "The Air Resources Board is the most successful environmental regulatory agency in the world," said White of the Sierra Club.
State Sen. Dean Florez, who pushed through five new clean-air laws last year, said the board is a critical tool in keeping tabs on mobile sources of pollution. Eliminating it, he said, "would be disastrous."
"That would be a step backward," said Florez, D-Shafter, adding that he plans to testify at the California Performance Review hearing in Fresno.
The board's makeup gives it continuity and institutional memory, said Kevin Hall, a Sierra Club member in Fresno. Members are appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate.
"If we lose any state oversight and delegate that upstream to the EPA or downstream to local air districts, Valley residents lose," Hall said. "Elimination of the [board] or a reduction in its authority would serve private industry and hurt public health."
Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of governmental relations for the American Lung Association of California, said the board structure preserves the public's right to give input.
Public access also is a concern for Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno. But, if the alternative allows business interests to have their say, Cunha said he would feel better about the suggestion.
Farmers are clashing with air officials over new rules that affect their industry.
"If [the board was] removed tomorrow, would I have severe heartburn and pains? The answer is no," Cunha said. "But I want to see what they would replace it with."
Reynolds said the reorganization would not eliminate the public hearing process. Most issues that require tough decisions are fully discussed before the board hears them, he said.
Public participation is necessary, but "at the same time accountability is essential to democracy," Reynolds said. "When everyone is in charge, no one is responsible."
# posted by Senator Dean Florez @ 10:34 PM 
