Supreme Court Upholds Faster Air Cleanup : Environment: The refusal to hear an appeal means that federal health standards must be met in the county sooner than the current deadline of 2005.

A U. S. Supreme Court decision Monday forcing the federal government to hasten air cleanup in Ventura County brought immediate praise from environmentalists while drawing concern from business leaders and county officials about its potential for economic hardship.

The high court’s ruling means that the county’s air quality, rated the ninth worst in the nation, must meet federal health standards much sooner than the current deadline of 2005.

By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency draw up plans to bring the county’s air pollution under control on “an expeditious schedule.”

To meet federal health standards for ozone, the primary component of smog, the federal government could impose far-reaching measures that would alter business practices and touch the lives of many county residents.

For example, EPA said it could require Ventura County motorists to restrict the use of their cars on specific days, force farmers to use expensive pollutant-free pesticides and limit cargo vessels off the coast.

But environmentalists praised the Supreme Court decision, saying it is about time that government officials take the health risks of smog seriously.

“Overall, there should be an improvement in air quality sooner than expected,” said Stanley Greene, president of the Citizens to Preserve the Ojai, which brought the suit against the EPA.

“There’s nothing good about ozone, and the longer you’ve got it around, the worse that people’s health will be.”

Richard Baldwin, director of the county’s air pollution control district, said he is pleased that the EPA will have to push harder for tightened controls over pesticides, ship traffic and other sources of pollution that local officials cannot control.

But he warned that the justices’ decision may also require county motorists to curtail driving, perhaps by establishing “no-drive” days and restricting available parking in business districts. Those measures could have a chilling effect on the area’s economy, Baldwin said.

“It makes it more difficult to go shopping, or to deliver goods,” he said. “And when you reduce the mobility of the community, you have an effect on the economy.”

Although the EPA must consider all options, an agency spokesman said such Draconian measures are not likely to be implemented.

“There is clearly no interest on EPA’s part for strategies as disruptive as that,” said David Jesson, an air quality specialist with the agency’s regional office in San Francisco.

Monday’s ruling also affects air plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which covers the Los Angeles basin, and another air control district in Sacramento County.

EPA attorneys are expected to meet with the plaintiffs within the next two months to schedule when Ventura County and other areas must meet federal deadlines for attaining clean air.

In Ventura County, where agriculture is a predominant industry, federal officials are likely to crack down on emissions from pesticides, Jesson said. Officials also will probably look at pollution from vessels plying the shipping lanes in the Santa Barbara Channel, he said.

Farmers have been working with regulators to reduce noxious emissions from pesticides for years, said Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau. But reformulating pesticides to remove pollutants is expensive and growers may not be able to afford the cost, Laird said.

“These formulations have to make sense economically both for the producer and the consumer,” he said. “We are seeing more and more pesticides taken away from us, so it is an increasing challenge.”

Laird said it is unfair to target agriculture when the lion’s share of pollution comes from the exhaust of cars and other vehicles. County officials said 50% of polluting emissions come from vehicles, while pesticides contribute about 12% of the county’s smog problem.

“There is a lot of sensitivity to the loss of jobs in California,” Laird said. “Which is not to say we don’t all want clean air. But I think we have to do a far better job as to how we achieve that goal.”

An attorney with the Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara, which represented the Citizens to Preserve the Ojai in its lawsuit, said he supports mass transit projects as a way to clean Ventura County’s air.

Attorney Marc Chytilo said the ruling should force more federal dollars toward projects such as electric buses, use of alternative fuels and conversion to clean-running automobiles, he said

“It’s always interesting,” he said, “the way lawsuits can free up money that is not otherwise available.”

MAIN STORY: A1