State Analyst Criticizes Air Quality Effort

California’s air quality is being compromised by lax enforcement of rules against pollution by businesses and poor oversight of antismog programs, according to a new government report.

The air is getting cleaner, but the state’s ambitious antipollution efforts are beset by conflicting rules and poor supervision.

Sometimes that creates confusion and added costs for business. Other times polluters get off easy for violating environmental laws, according to the 20-page report, which was released last week by the legislative analyst’s office, the study arm of the Legislature.

Responsibility for the shortcomings, the legislative analyst says, rests primarily with the state Air Resources Board and the 35 local air districts it oversees. Together they comprise the bulwark against air pollution, yet they do not always work in concert, which impedes progress toward blue skies, the report concludes.

Bureaucrats can mend some of the problems, but correcting all of them will likely require new laws, the report suggests.

It levels its harshest criticism at what it describes as lax enforcement of clean-air rules. Fines are too low and inspections and compliance are inconsistent, the report states.

“We find significant inconsistencies among districts in how they respond to violations,” the report says. “These inconsistencies, particularly as regards penalties assessed for air quality violations, have reduced the effectiveness of the [clean-air] program.”

Air quality officials dispute many of the findings and point instead to California’s success in reducing stubborn ozone and haze, the two most abundant pollutants in the state.

“The report is clearly off on a number of points,” said Barry Wallerstein, executive officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees smog cleanup in Los Angeles, Orange and parts of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. “We’ve got as fine an enforcement program as you’ll find anywhere in the nation.”

Vic Weisser, president of the San Francisco-based California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, which represents labor and big businesses, said he has seen considerable strides made by state officials to enforce environmental laws.

He said he welcomes those attempts because they prevent scofflaw companies from gaining economic advantage.

“The Air Resources Board is trying to ensure the districts’ enforcement programs are more than adequate, and it’s trying to push for uniformity and equity,” Weisser said.

Nevertheless, Sen. Byron Sher (D-Stanford), who wrote California’s Clean Air Act and chairs the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, said the report will get careful consideration by the Legislature in the months ahead.

The report “highlights a problem that we have been aware of for some time,” Sher said. “The personnel in the air districts are good, dedicated people and they’ve achieved good results, but there are some problems.”

Federal laws largely drive California’s antismog programs, but they leave to state and local governments the job of adopting and enforcing regulations. While that has resulted in cleaner air across the state, the report pointed to several deficiencies.

One is inconsistent rules, particularly measures dealing with low-polluting paints and solvents. Because each air district pursues its own strategy, products that are illegal to sell in one part of California can be sold elsewhere in the state, making the rules difficult to enforce, easy to circumvent and burdensome for business, the study says.

The report recommends that the state air board approve some uniform standards that apply across the state.

Air board spokesman Jerry Martin said the agency is considering approving statewide rules for auto finishes, building paints and power plants. But on many products, having uniform regulations across California could do more harm than good, officials say.

“There may be some things that are necessary in the L.A. Basin but are not appropriate in another county like Sonoma,” said Barbara Lee, chief of the northern Sonoma County air district and president of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Assn.

“If the state tries to establish rules that hit the middle ground, you would have requirements that would not address the needs of some areas and over-regulate others,” she said.

Another significant area of inconsistency involves how local air boards respond to violations, the report says, adding that “these inconsistencies, particularly as regards penalties . . . have reduced the effectiveness of the program.”

Some air districts allow polluters to get away with violations for years. When they do fine them, the penalties are relatively small. And repeat violators seldom face increased penalties, the study shows.

An average penalty of $800 was paid for 8,300 violations reported statewide in 1998 and 1999--well below the maximum of $1,000 to $50,000 per day allowed under law.

A January 2000 audit of the South Coast air district revealed that three-quarters of the enforcement actions were settled for less than $500 each. In some counties, the fines are much less and do not pose a credible deterrent, the report says.

“People get speeding tickets that are twice as much as some of these penalties,” said Paula Forbis, campaign director for the Environmental Health Coalition, an environmental group for San Diego and Tijuana. “There’s a disconnect in the regulatory system when big corporations are penalized less than an individual.”

Sher said air quality officials are sometimes subject to political pressure--particularly during bad economic times--from local politicians who govern the air districts. The Legislature has been remiss, he added, in adequately funding those districts.

Enforcement shortcomings can continue for years, too, because the state air board rarely conducts comprehensive audits of local districts. State law requires so-called program reviews, but at the rate they are conducted, it would take 20 years to perform thorough reviews of all 35 local air districts, the study says.

To correct those deficiencies, the report recommends a statewide enforcement policy, comprehensive reporting of violators, and the institution of mandatory minimum penalties for serious violations. That approach has been used since 1990 in New Jersey to deal with water polluters, resulting in a significant decline in violations, according to the report.

At the state air board, Martin said the agency will consider the proposals, although he cautioned that local officials know best how to regulate companies in their communities.

“It’s something we will look at, but you have to consider there are different pollution sources and different economic bases in these communities. It’s not something we want to mess with a whole lot.”