Judge Declines to Put Off Adoption of L.A. Anti-Smog Plan : Air: Jurist grants a two-year delay in enforcement but says EPA’s pollution-control effort must be approved this month. Governor vows to continue the fight in Congress.

A federal judge ruled Monday that the Clinton Administration must adopt a controversial clean-air plan for the Los Angeles Basin this month, but he granted a two-year delay in enforcement of its sweeping measures.

Saying his hands were tied by an upper court decision, U.S. District Judge Harry L. Hupp rejected a request by Gov. Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to halt the final version of the unpopular anti-smog plan, which is expected to be unveiled a week from today. Wilson and Riordan are seeking a delay in the plan’s adoption, not just its implementation dates, because they say it will be devastating to the state’s economy.

Taking his battle to Congress as a last recourse, the governor plans to testify before a House subcommittee on Thursday seeking an emergency change in the Clean Air Act to block the federal plan, known as FIP.

Calling FIP “a tragic example of a system run amok,” Wilson said in a statement Monday that “California’s economy and the threat of billions of dollars in unnecessary regulations are completely in the hands of the Congress.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan contains more than 100 measures proposed a year ago and targeting virtually every source of smog in the Los Angeles region.

All parties in the case--the Clinton Administration, the Wilson Administration, environmentalists, businesses, even the judge--agreed Monday that the federal plan creates an unwanted, overlapping and confusing clean-air bureaucracy. But Hupp said he is bound by an appeals court ruling, which in 1992 ordered him to “establish an expeditious schedule” for the federal government to adopt clean-air rules for the smoggy Los Angeles region.

“You’re aware my discretion is rather narrow--practically nonexistent,” Hupp told the 11 attorneys who appeared before him Monday. “You have a logical case, but the court of appeals didn’t agree with that interpretation. You’ll have to go back to Congress.”

Hupp also scolded the state for intervening in the case so late. “Where were you when (the EPA) was fighting this battle?” he asked a Wilson Administration attorney.

The lawsuit that forced the EPA to take over smog control in California was filed by the Coalition for Clean Air in 1985 after the state repeatedly failed to develop a strategy to meet the health standard for ozone, the main ingredient of smog, as required under the 1977 Clean Air Act. The EPA battled in court for seven years to keep the responsibility with the state before losing its case in 1992.

On Monday, the two environmental groups that had sued the EPA told Hupp they were not opposed to the Wilson Administration’s request for a 15-month delay in adoption. But Hupp said the appeals court had “thoroughly devastated” his own earlier ruling that the EPA did not have to draft its own plan.

The EPA asked the court for the delay in implementing the measures so it would have time to review and approve an alternative plan, considered less costly and onerous, crafted by California officials in November. The EPA also has agreed to delay implementation of similar measures proposed for Sacramento and Ventura counties.

David Howekamp, director of air programs for the EPA’s Western region, said the court ruling would actually help California.

“This decision by the court provides the breathing room we all need to approve a state clean air plan and withdraw the court-ordered federal plan before it goes into effect,” he said.

But Wilson and Riordan said the judge’s ruling offers no relief because the threat of federal rules still looms over the state’s economy. They worry that the EPA won’t or can’t live up to its goal of approving the state plan by 1997 and that fear of the federal intrusion is so great among businesses that they will leave the state or reconsider moves to California.

“There is no benefit to the environment, but there is considerable harm from requiring EPA to promulgate the FIP now,” Riordan said in papers filed with the judge. “Its presence on the books . . . serves no purpose but to confuse.”

Dennis Zane, executive director of the Coalition for Clean Air, called the arguments “a real red herring,” saying FIP no longer poses a substantial threat. “They should shift their attention to a matter of substance--clean air in the state,” he said.

The governor seeks legislation that would clarify that Congress intended to remove the 1977 requirement for federal plans when it adopted new Clean Air Act deadlines for states in 1990.

U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), who chairs a subcommittee that oversees the EPA’s budget, said he will seek the legislation as a priority matter. The change in the law, designed only for California, is expected to get wide bipartisan support in Congress.