U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials are due to make another decision affecting California/s air quality. It seems these folks never tire of reversing and contradicting themselves.

First, the EPA/s brain-trust turned down this state/s request for a federal waiver through the Clean Air Act, so California could set tougher tailpipe emissions standards. EPA honchos nixed the idea because they believe a state, or dozens of states, shouldn/t be allowed to supersede federal law on this issue 7 even though that is specifically allowed in the Clean Air Act.

Now, the EPA is on the verge of announcing a reduction in allowable parts-per-billion levels of ozone, in large part because so many areas of the country 7 and of California 7 are chronically out of compliance with regard to attaining specified ozone levels.

We/re OK here on the Central Coast, thanks in large part to prevailing winds and a general lack of super-dense population centers. But drive a few miles down the coast, toward the Los Angeles Basin, and bad things start to clog the air. Ozone is the primary ingredient in smog, for which Southern California and it/s yellow haze became famous 30 or so years ago.

A government map of California shows significant areas along the southern coast, and up through the central sections of the state, where allowable ozone levels are routinely violated. The ruling expected this week or next from the EPA could make those requirements even more stringent, which means a fair number of California counties would be out of compliance, and at risk of losing federal funds.

It/s as though EPA/s right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. Federal officials believe there is a serious health risk related to high levels of ozone in California/s air, but won/t allow the state to take action to solve the problem.

As one might guess, there is a fierce lobbying effort by big business to keep the ozone attainment requirements where they are. The captains of commerce argue that tougher rules would damage the economy 7 although the Clean Air Act requires that, in such rulings, health concerns trump economics.

To complicate matters, members of Congress this week grilled EPA chief Stephen Johnson on why his agency is dragging its feet on deciding whether greenhouse gasses 8 tailpipe emissions being a major part of that 7 should be more strictly regulated, which is what California and other state officials want to do with those waivers.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled nearly a year ago that the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to make such a determination with regard to greenhouse gasses, but Johnson admitted this week that not much has been done, even though he had promised to reply to the high court/s ruling several months ago.

When California Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Johnson if anyone in the EPA was working on the greenhouse gas issue, the EPA administrator said he didn/t know. Feinstein accused Johnson of stonewalling, which he denied doing.

And so it goes at the agency whose major responsibility is to protect Americans from bad water and air, but apparently not from bad politics.

California and a dozen other states are suing the EPA over its refusal to grant waivers allowing the states to move forward with tougher emissions laws. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of U.S. citizens suffer health problems because the EPA can/t make up its mind which comes first, business or people, with regard to how much smog they should have to tolerate.

Much like its smaller cousin FEMA, the EPA may be a federal agency in need of a top-down reconstruction after next January.

March 7, 2008