Lawsuit may affect clean air
| Wednesday, Apr 08 2009 09:38 PM
Last Updated Wednesday, Apr 08 2009 09:38 PM
Loading Stories
Advertisement
A major air pollution rule limiting emissions from dairies will be suspended in May, just as the San Joaquin Valley enters its peak smog season.
And local air regulators on Wednesday pointed the finger at a Shafter-based environmental group that sued them.
The situation is a result of a lawsuit brought by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) that claimed an air district rule limiting emissions from dairies wasn’t tough enough.
A court rejected the group’s main argument but agreed the air district had failed to properly analyze the rule’s public health benefits, which is mandated by state law. As a result, the rule will be revoked while the health study is done. The rule suspension could last anywhere from one month to several.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which adopted and enforces the rule, says it tried to keep the rule in effect until then but AIR refused.
“It’s really unfortunate they insisted the rule be rescinded. I’m hoping the people living by these dairies won’t be impacted by rolling back these rules,” said Seyed Sadredin, the air district’s executive director.
AIR said repealing the rule is necessary so a stronger rule can be developed. It disputed the district’s claims that air quality could be impacted, saying the rule was so weak it didn’t achieve any real pollution reductions.
“What the rule requires dairies to do are things the dairies were already doing before the rule came into play,” said Brent Newell, an attorney for the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment who represents AIR.
Rule in limbo for now
The rule in dispute applies to all large confined animal facilities, which include hundreds of dairies in the San Joaquin Valley and a smaller number of beef, cattle, swine and poultry facilities.
These facilities are considered one of the state’s largest source of volatile organic compounds, a key ingredient in smog. The air district says the rule’s impact on VOCs is equivalent to removing 1.3 million cars from the road each day.
The air district board is tentatively scheduled to revoke the rule May 21. It will remain suspended until the district completes a health study. After reviewing the study, the board will decide whether to reinstate the rule or start the process of drafting a new one, a process that could take months. That decision on how to proceed is expected at its June 18 meeting.
AIR wants the board to decide in favor of a new rule. It sees it as its only chance to require dairies to do more to reduce pollution.
“Our main hope now is the health study will point out the inadequacy of the rule and the board will agree we have to make the rule stronger,” said Tom Frantz, president of AIR.
Dueling opinions
State Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, who authored state laws requiring the district to regulate agriculture, said Wednesday he supports AIR’s actions. If the air district adhered to the law and did the health analysis in the first place, it wouldn’t have to repeal the rule, he said.
“Environmentalists sued and they were right to do so,” said Florez, D-Shafter.
Frantz and other critics have contended the rule is too weak since it was first proposed. They say most dairies didn’t have to change a thing to comply with it
and the air district was playing a numbers game to appease industry while claiming phony pollution reductions.
A trial court and appellate court disagreed, however.
In a November ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that aside from elaborating on the health benefits of the rule, it found no evidence that the rule didn’t achieve its goal.
“AIR has not provided any science to refute the (pollution reduction) estimates assigned by the district,” the ruling said, adding that state law leaves “the number crunching and the science” to the air district and the court “cannot say that the district’s assumptions are arbitrary and capricious.”
Kern County Supervisor Ray Watson, an air district board member, said criticism of air district rules often boils down to “dueling scientists” but in this case, he sides with the district.
“In the end, we have a bunch of very good scientists on the district staff. I’m going to believe them until someone proves them wrong,” he said. “That hasn’t been done yet.”
