Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/27/2005 9:11:35 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Environmental groups have the right to sue state agencies for not controlling pesticide pollution, a federal judge in Sacramento ruled Monday.
State air quality agencies violated the federal Clean Air Act,which calls for a 20 percent reduction in smog caused by pesticides between 1990 and 2005, the lawsuit says.
The required smog reduction hasn't happened in the San Joaquin Valley, where pesticide-induced smog has increased since 1990.
"I'm ecstatic that (the judge) saw it our way," said Teresa DeAnda, an activist from Earlimart whose organization joined four others in the suit.
They say the state's approach to pesticide smog pollution isn't working, and the judge's ruling allows them to continue their year-old case. The state relies on voluntary programs, said attorney Brent Newell, a lawyer for the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, who represents the environmental groups. It won't force pesticide manufacturers and users to cut down smog, he said.
Those arguments are "(public relations) distortions," wrote Glenn Brank, spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation, in an e-mail. Smog from pesticides dropped consistently in the San Joaquin Valley through 2001, he wrote, but then levels began "creeping up."
By 2003, pesticide emissions were higher than they were in 1990.
The department is trying to get those numbers down, Brank wrote. In the next month, it will order manufacturers to reformulate more than 800 pesticides to reduce smog. It's working with industry to come up with cleaner ways to apply pesticides, and is researching better practices for fumigants.
"We have repeatedly voiced our commitment to clean air in the San Joaquin Valley and other areas," Brank wrote.
But pesticide regulators refuse to regulate, Newell said, and change hasn't happened voluntarily. The state points to low emissions in 2001, but that was "a complete anomaly," he said.
Smog is the common term for ozone, the product of a reaction between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Smog is linked to a host of lung problems, including asthma and decreased lung capacity.
Pesticides were the sixth-highest source of smog-forming volatile organic compounds in the San Joaquin Valley in 2004 -- after dairies, trucks, cars, agricultural burning and oil and gas production.
The pesticides with the most smog potential are methyl bromide, dichloropropene, metam-sodium, chloropyrifos and oxyfluorfen, according to the plaintiffs' press release.
The Department of Pesticide Regulation is required to monitor pesticide-induced smog in five areas of the state: the Sacramento area, the San Joaquin Valley, Ventura, the south coast and the southeast desert. Sacramento and the south coast have met their smog goals, but the rest have more than they started with in 1990.
The local plaintiffs are DeAnda's El Comite para el Bienestar de Earlimart and the Shafter-based Association of Irritated Residents. They joined three Ventura groups, Community and Children's Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning, Wishtoyo Foundation and Ventura Coastkeeper.
The suit names the Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency and the state Air Resources Board.
Everyone better get ready to pull their businesses out of the Peoples Green Republic of Kalifornia!
Now we can sue for dirty oceans, dog poop, noise pollution, great. California is so lame. It's lamer than lame, i just can't write it on here.
My question is, have smog levels across the state decreased by more than 20% since 1990? As with any statistical analysis, part of the whole can be up but the whole can still be down. Noticeably absent from the article is that telling piece of information, leading me to believe that the state is hitting its 20% reduction goal, and what we have here are eco-terrorists attempting to use the strong arm of the law to kill legitimate economic expansion
LOL...
I have just added Kalifornia to my list of perminently worthless states...oh wait it was # 2 right after Taxachusettes!
Yes indeed. I do believe that smog levels have gone down and continue to do so. And theres more ... while they refer to it as "pesticide pollution" they are being less than truthful - the reality behind the rhetoric is not the pesticides themselves, but is the petroleum based carriers of them that, by design, are supposed to evaporate, leaving behind the actual pesticide on the plants and trees. So if they want to go after that, then by rights they need to go after charcoal lighter (as well as self lighting charcoal), any and all gas stations selling diesel (drip, drip, drip!) as well as any number of other situations where petroleum based compounds evaporate. Yet another crock of alarmist sh$# from the Green enemy who have ruined this state.
This simply cannot be. Kalifornia has had air quality and pollution controls in effect since the 60s or 70s. Auto emissions are strictly enforced and, to protect the air quality, Kalifornia has not allowed new electricity generating plants or oil refineries to be built in a generation.
Obviously, this article is the result of a misunderstanding by the reporter.
Sac Bee article at least has the Judge's name..
Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Clinton Appointee, 2000
I live in the San Joaquin Valley, on the western edge across the hills from Livermore. What this article fails to note is that the valley is plagued with high pollution levels because the winds coming from the west clear out the coastal areas and the pollutants are then trapped in the valley by the Sierras. All pollutants therefore are worse in the valley.
The coastal areas won't change their lifestyles because technically their areas meet pollution level goals while the valley is being penalized due to coastal behavior. In order to meet the goals set by the state, we would have to practically go back to the stone age (before fire) just because we have to count the coastal pollution as our own.
The valley is trying to redraw pollution divisions from the valley only to include urban areas upwind but, of course, the powerful urban areas are fighting it tooth and nail. Likely it won't happen because it will make places like San Francisco and San Jose and Los Angeles have to take responsibility for the pollution they are generating.
Wish us luck.
What this article fails to note is that the valley is plagued with high pollution levels because the winds coming from the west clear out the coastal areas and the pollutants are then trapped in the valley by the Sierras.
All pollutants therefore are worse in the valley.
WOW, Common Sense!
Judge Lawrence K. Karlton the Clinton Appointee knows this. It appears that Teresa DeAnda was suprised that Judge Karton ruled in their favor. But why?
"I'm ecstatic that (the judge) saw it our way," said Teresa DeAnda, an activist from Earlimart whose organization joined four others in the suit.
I believe it is to keep lawyers employed and the legal business profitable. California defense attorneys can site your case in point and win the day.
It's how the left earns money, the old fashion way. They steal it from taxpayers.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
BTTT!!!!!!
The Judge's name may not be in the article but we all know that it is, Mudd.
I don't suppose the Judge could have decided otherwise. Who would say the citizens of a state do not have a right to sue themselves, which is what suing your state boils down to anyway. They will have no choice but to raise taxes on themselves to pay off the suit against themselves if they win.
If they are lucky enough to lose, they will only owe themselves the court costs involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.