NVR Logo
Court: State did not meet burden under Clean Air Act
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Save and Share Share
SACRAMENTO -- California violated the Clean Air Act when it decided nine years ago that no regulations were necessary to cut smog-forming compounds in farm and commercial pesticides, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton's decision means that lawyers for environmental groups and the state will meet to discuss possible remedies for the pollution. Lawyers for both groups have been ordered to file briefs in 20 days.
"The bottom line is that the state should have had regulations in place to have a 20 percent reduction of these emissions in five basins by this year," said plaintiffs' attorney Brent Newell of the Center on Race Poverty and the Environment.

Karlton said the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Air Resources Board, and the California Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act in 1997 when they decided new rules weren't needed to reduce pollutants from pesticides.
The agencies were required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1994 to adopt regulations that would cut the emissions from their 1990 levels by 20 percent in five California air basins, including the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento and Ventura.

Instead, they asked pesticide producers to reformulate some of their products to reduce the ozone-depleting emissions, according to the ruling.
"In the absence of a state commitment to promulgate regulations based upon meaningful data, rather than an option to pass regulations, the statutory requirements (of the Clean Air Act) would not be met," the judge wrote.

In Wednesday's ruling, Karlton rejected a second claim alleging that the state intentionally manipulated baseline levels of pesticide components to avoid adopting the ozone regulations.

Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the Department of Pesticide Regulation, said the decision "rules in favor of DPR on one cause of action and rules in favor of the plaintiffs on another."

"Until our attorneys can analyze the ruling all we can say is that DPR is doing its best to comply with the law and air standards to protect Californians," Brank said.

The plaintiffs included Ventura Coastkeepers and Community and Children's Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning.
No comments posted.
Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy