Presley to Introduce Bill to Toughen Smog Agency

In response to criticism of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s efforts to combat smog, state Sen. Robert B. Presley (D-Riverside) is today introducing legislation to revamp the pollution agency’s board and give it authority to impose new controls on certain vehicles and on industry in the Los Angeles basin.

“We have to do something or the whole basin can become unlivable,” said Presley, who held a series of hearings last year on the air quality board’s activity. “Up until now, we have been holding our own and gaining slightly. . . . But we are at a crucial stage because of the additional population and the added cars we are projecting.”

The proposed change comes at a time when the district’s board, which was formed 10 years ago, has been the subject of intense criticism by environmental groups, including the Coalition for Clean Air. Moreover, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Air Resources Board are conducting an extensive audit of the agency’s operations.

The Presley measure would permit the board to require public agencies and companies with fleets of trucks and cars to use cleaner, methanol-containing fuels. It would also empower the agency to restrict the use of diesel trucks during rush hours and to require employers to develop ride-sharing plans for their workers.

The bill would also allow the district to impose fees that would increase with the amount of air emissions--providing a strong economic incentive for operators of a pollution source to cut emissions even when the pollutant levels are within permitted amounts.

“Those are consistent with recommendations I made at the Presley hearings,” said James Lents, executive officer for the air quality district. He said that the board has considered a number of actions to reduce pollution that have been blocked because of questions over the board’s authority to regulate cars, trucks and buses. Under present law, the state Air Resources Board sets standards for vehicle emissions, and the Bureau of Automotive Repair runs the vehicle smog inspection program.

Last year, the board backed away from a proposal to require large employers to formulate voluntary ride-sharing programs for workers because it believed it did not have the authority to do so, Lents said.

While Lents was receptive to many of the proposed changes in the district’s authority, he took no position on provisions that would change the makeup of the agency’s governing board. “We’ll work for whoever they give us to work for,” Lents said.

But the overhauling of the structure of the board may be the heart of the Presley measure. The board now consists of 14 members, most of them local government officials or their representatives, drawn from the four counties--Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino--that make up the air quality district.

Too often the current board members are more concerned about satisfying businesses in their own localities at the expense of air quality in the South Coast basin, Presley maintained.

Under the proposed legislation, there would be a new, seven-member board--with five members appointed by the governor and one each by the Assembly Speaker and the Senate Rules Committee. All would have to be residents of the four counties in the district.

Technical Experts

The reconstituted board would have to include members who are themselves experts in technical areas that are crucial to understanding air pollution, including a health specialist, an environmental engineer, a chemist or meteorologist and an air pollution specialist.

The new board would be directly responsible for issuing permits, an authority now shared by the agency’s staff and a hearing board. Under the present system, the agency makes about 90,000 rulings on permits a year, said Jim Birakos, the agency’s deputy executive officer.

Presley argued that the changes are needed to make the board more accountable for its actions. Under his proposal, all panel members could be removed from office--by the governor or legislative body that appointed them.

Different Terms

The measure would also force the air quality district to change the terms it uses to describe air quality, requiring the district to conform to standard descriptions recommended by the EPA. For example, the bill would place the label “unhealthful” on air quality that the district now describes as “moderate” or “unhealthful for sensitive persons.” The present system is misleading to district residents, the EPA recently charged.

The operations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been the subject of intense criticism from individuals and groups believing that more can be done to reduce smog. One of the toughest critics is a current member of the board, Sabrina Schiller, who was appointed to her post by the Senate Rules Committee.

In a recent interview, Schiller said that the board, created in 1977, had not lived up to its promise. “That’s not the fault of the Legislature,” she said. “That’s the fault of the people who have been in control of the board. . . . What matters is how the members of the board are held accountable to the public.”

Nestande Unhappy

Fellow board member Bruce Nestande, an Orange County supervisor, said he, too, is unhappy about the present structure of the board. But, he said, Presley’s proposals go in the wrong direction.

“One, I don’t believe in giving that kind of power to non-elected people, and, two, I think you’ll get a better result by linking air quality to development at the local level,” Nestande said.

He said he favored disbanding the air quality board and forcing county supervisors and city councils to consider the air quality consequences of the development proposals that come before them.

Orange County Supervisor Don R. Roth, who as mayor of Anaheim was an air quality board member until he was elected to the Board of Supervisors last November, said he favors the move to reduce the size of the board.

Called Too Big

“When I first went on the board five or six years ago, they were all elected officials except for a governor’s appointment. It was a seven-person board. I thought we ran in a very efficient manner. . . .” Roth said. “The board, in my opinion, became too big, and it didn’t accomplish anything.”

But Roth said he, too, opposes a switch to a board entirely of appointed officials.

“I’m an elected official, and I think they are the most responsive. There’s some recourse (for voters). . . . If citizens didn’t like me, they could not vote for me for reelection or they could recall me. People have more control by having elected officials. What recourse do they have over appointees?”

Times staff writers Larry B. Stammer and Steve Emmons contributed to this story.