Paradise Delayed--The Continuing Saga of the Los Angeles Basin Federal Clean Air Implementation Plan

Abstract

I. INTRODUCTION It should not be surprising that the Clean Air Act is stressed to its limit when it faces the worst air-pollution in the country -- that found in the Los Angeles Basin. There, an automobile culture, unfavorable meteorology, substantial population, and extensive manufacturing base are presented in a balkanized landscape of local governments. Given the regional nature of the air pollution problem, the effects of decisions made by municipalities are typically felt some distance away, by voters in other jurisdictions. Also, the impacts of air pollution are borne by the public generally, with no focused constituency corresponding to that found in the regulated community which bears most costs of air pollution controls. This is hardly a recipe for success if healthy air is to be achieved for the approximately 14 million residents of the area. Unfortunately, experience counsels this pessimistic forecast. While it now seems painfully optimistic, the 1970 Clean Air Act directed that all areas of the country, including the Los Angeles Basin, achieve healthy air by 1975.(1) The primary method for achieving this goal was the state implementation plan (SIP), a collection of control measures developed by states and demonstrated adequate to produce healthy air. Foreseeing the difficulties that this ambitious goal would present, the 1970 Act also directed the federal government to develop a plan for any areas where state efforts fell short. As conceived in 1970, the federal implementation plan, or was anticipated to serve a number of useful purposes. Most importantly, the FIP appeared to guarantee that healthy air would be achieved, because it committed the federal government to taking action if state and local government efforts fell short. On a more subtle level, the threat of a FIP would inspire state and local governments to act, perhaps overcoming the obstacles mentioned above. In practice, however, reality has fallen short of this promise. Despite considerable efforts spanning more than two decades, the Los Angeles Basin has never had a SIP that would achieve all federal air quality standards. In addition, two FIPs(2) for the Los Angeles Basin have now been commenced, only to be abandoned. Moreover, neither of these FIPs was undertaken voluntarily by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and each had to be compelled by citizen suit.(3) Presently, reliance continues to be placed on a state planning process that has failed for over a quarter of a century to satisfy its federal obligations. A number of factors have contributed to this impasse. The sheer magnitude of the planning effort required and the corresponding time scale necessary to carry out those efforts were not adequately accounted for in the initial 1970 Clean Air Act. The broad approach taken in the 1970 Clean Air Act, which was based upon achieving health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), added to the challenge. For the most part, those portions of the Clean Air Act that have worked well (such as new motor vehicle standards) were technology-based rather than ambient-based. Unfortunately for the citizens of the Los Angeles Basin, however, the technology-based approaches in the 1970 Clean Air Act were designed for broader areas (such as California or the nation as a whole) and fell far short of meeting the reductions necessary to produce healthy air in Los Angeles. In hindsight, when applied to the Los Angeles area, the 1975 attainment deadline was obviously a pipe dream. By the time the Clean Air Act's original 1975 deadline was approaching, amendments to the Act were in preparation, resulting in a wait and see attitude on the part of many regulators. These delays and the resulting lack of an adequate implementation plan for the Los Angeles Basin, led to the preparation of a FIP in 1973. This FIP, in turn, was withdrawn as amendments to the Clean Air Act were developed in the mid-1970s, culminating in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. …