Officials Lobbying Against Clean Air Proposals : Growth: County opposes giving EPA the power to bar funding for transportation projects that could worsen pollution. Proponents think the provisions will pass.

Orange County officials are lobbying against proposed Clean Air Act provisions that would give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to bar federal funds for some transportation projects.

The provisions, county officials said, could stop projects that the EPA believes will promote too much job or population growth in one area, thus increasing pollution.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, chairman of the Orange County Transportation Commission, opposed such provisions in an April 24 letter to Rep. Glenn M. Anderson (D-Hawthorne). Anderson is chairman of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, which is seeking rights to review the Clean Air Act before it goes to the House floor. The act expires this year and is up for renewal.

Environmentalists are pressuring some members of Congress not to allow Anderson’s committee to review the legislation because of the panel’s allegedly pro-development bent.

One of the disputed provisions would require the EPA to assess how federally funded projects affect population and employment growth, with an underlying assumption that too much growth frustrates anti-pollution efforts.

“It is our view that such growth impacts cannot be accurately or reliably measured, and therefore should not be used as a basis for determining the conformity of individual projects with clean air plans,” Riley wrote in his letter.

Riley proposed that transportation projects should be viewed in a regional, systemwide context, so that the impact on a specific site or local community is not weighted so heavily.

The issue is expected to be decided in the next two weeks, with aides to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), co-author of the new clean air bill, predicting that the disputed provision will survive a floor vote.

“The problem in the past has been that the (Department of Transportation) hasn’t given enough attention to environmental concerns,” said Phil Schiliro, a member of Waxman’s staff. “Some transportation projects can be a magnet for growth.”

Schiliro said the proposed legislation simply treats transportation projects like any others that would normally come under the EPA’s review.

The Senate has already adopted a similar provision in its version of the Clean Air Act, but it allows exemptions for projects that reduce vehicle use in metropolitan areas.

Anderson, who has championed Orange County transportation projects in Congress even though he does not represent county residents, could not be reached for comment. David Smellen, Anderson’s press secretary, said Anderson’s committee held an April 19 hearing on the disputed provision but has not yet decided what to do about it.

Stanley T. Oftelie, executive director of the Orange County Transportation Commission, said the proposed legislation “could be big trouble for us.”

“There are a number of transportation projects here that the EPA might find lacking, and this just adds another layer of bureaucracy to go through in order to get something done,” Oftelie said.

Added Riley: “It’s quite obvious that to do anything but comply with the law, if it is passed, is financially unacceptable.”

Riley was referring to the loss of federal funds that could result from noncompliance.

Santa Ana Mayor Daniel H. Young, a member of the county’s Transportation Corridor Agencies, said earlier this week that the county’s tollway projects may run into EPA trouble unless viewed as part of a regional transportation system.

The problem, county officials said, is that some projects appear to keep intact the one-sided, jobs-housing imbalance that is the result of people buying cheaper housing in Riverside and San Bernardino counties but commuting to jobs in Orange County, thus increasing the number of long-distance commuters.

Also, the accuracy of job- and population-growth projections are controversial, with the federally funded Southern California Assn. of Governments often publishing growth estimates for Orange County that go far beyond what county demographers foresee.

Some SCAG officials have even proposed that Orange County be penalized in the future if the county’s--and its cities’--growth management policies aren’t strong enough to force employment growth to the Inland Empire.

What form such penalties would take has not been specified, and resolution of the issue is not expected soon.