|
 resident George
W. Bush, a former Texas governor, knows well the financial impacts
of well-meaning federal
mandates
on the states. He now has a chance to fix some. How about starting
with the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA, as written, not only
costs untold billions, it contains provisions that work against
obtaining cleaner air.
Take the ground-level ozone standard, the one that has gotten the
Houston region in such trouble. The CAA establishes a "one-hour"
standard for ambient ozone of 125 parts per billion (ppb) that cannot
be met or exceeded more than three days over a period of three years.
If a region busts the 125 ppb limit three times in three years,
they are slapped with a list of sanctions that includes the loss
of federal highway funds. An even tougher "eight-hour" standard
which was supposed to replace the one-hour version is currently
in litigation.
Many see no problem with this rigid approach, as clean air is such
an important goal. They might take a closer look at the unintended
consequences.
First, it doesn't matter whether a region misses the mark by a little
or a lot — the punishment is the same. This means the state
and region which tries its hardest and barely crosses the line faces
the same whipping as those who didn't try at all. It doesn't matter
how many billions were spent or what draconian measures were imposed
on local business and populace.
Not exactly fair. We don't punish a motorist who goes one mile-per-hour
past the posted speed limit the same as the reckless driver who
drag races in a school zone.
It is time to introduce graduated penalties to the CAA that take
into account the level of violation and whether diligent efforts
were made to comply.
Next, the CAA places 100 percent of the burden for compliance on
the states and localities. Yet, these entities
| “The
CAA can be amended now to fix its shortcoming — or
it will be revised later when the flaws become impossible
to ignore.” |
|
don't have control over 100 percent of the emission sources. For
instance, in the Houston region at least 30 percent of the emission
sources contributing to the ozone dilemma are under federal control.
In the Dallas region, the percentage of emission sources Texas is
preempted from regulating by federal law is even higher.
How can the states control pollution when the feds regulate the
engine emissions from planes, trains, automobiles and trucks? The
answer is that they can't, but they still get slapped.
This situation was accurately described as "fundamentally unfair"
by Jeff Saitas, executive director of the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission at a recent hearing before our Senate Natural
Resources Committee. The same testimony needs to be given at U.S.
congressional hearings, and it needs to be heeded.
The CAA also seems oblivious to the fact that pollution moves. The
plume of air flowing into the Dallas area has been measured to have
ambient ozone levels as high as 120 ppb. If the folks in Dallas
add just 5 ppb more to the existing mix, they face being hammered.
The City of El Paso sits on the border with Mexico and has no control
over what floats over from Juarez. Again, the El Paso residents
risk being disciplined for pollutants they cannot control &3151;
short of building a five-mile high wall along the Rio Grande.
It makes sense to measure the pollutants coming into an area and
then track success or failure for the folks downwind by how much
they add to this baseline.
It also seems logical to not sanction an entire city for an ozone
spike caused by an "upset emission," or an accidental release of
ozone-creating chemicals by an industrial facility. Why punish a
million people for the negligent acts of a few? Tracking down the
source of the emission and levying stiff fines is a better strategy.
Then there is a problem with the science itself. The emission control
measures a state adopts, or its State Implementation Plan (SIP),
are based upon complex pollution/climate models. The trouble is
that the models themselves can be off by staggering amounts. The
model in place now for Houston has a possible error rate of plus
or minus 35 percent! Millions of dollars are being budgeted in Texas
to come up with better models, but this is still an emerging area
of knowledge.
Why not hold off on punishing the states in these cases? After all,
the SIP documents were reviewed and approved by the EPA as being
sufficient to fix the pollution problems. So long as the states
used the best science available at the time — and are willing
to make changes to the SIP as newer modeling data becomes available
— it seems sadistic to flog them along the way.
Then there are the sanctions themselves. John W. Johnson, chairman
of the Texas Transportation Commission, has observed the irony of
using as a punishment loss of highway funds when the obvious consequence
of doing so is to worsen the existing pollution problems.
An automobile's catalytic converter operates at peak efficiency
between 25-55 mph. Stop-and-go traffic means more pollution and
thousands of cars in gridlock on the expressway is a recipe for
high ozone levels. Building more and better roads, especially ones
that divert commercial traffic away from the center of town, is
an obvious answer to the problem. This is hard to do when your highway
money is taken away.
Many have opined that the CAA is literally untouchable legislation,
but no creation of mankind is perfect. The goal of clean air shouldn't
require the sacrifice of common sense along the way. The problems
cited above are negatively impacting scores of cities around the
nation and it will only get worse as the 2007 final compliance deadline
approaches. The CAA can be amended now to fix its shortcoming —
or it will be revised later when the flaws become impossible to
ignore. Doing it now will save both time and a whole lot of money.
It will take political courage to face the inevitable demagoguery
on this issue, but the facts are on the side of the reformers.
|
