|
|
|
|
Turbulence in store for air control district? |
|
|
Wednesday, 20 February 2008 |
|
By Mike Gervais
Register Staff 2-19-2008
Rumors that Mono County is planning to withdraw from the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District have sparked discussion and worry about the future of the entire district from Inyo and Alpine counties, the district’s other two members.
But, according to Second District Mono County Supervisor Duane “Hap” Hazard, Mono County has no current plans to secede from the district, but rather is in the process of evaluating its position with Great Basin APCD.
Local authorities in Inyo and Alpine counties are paying close attention to Mono’s standing with Great Basin, because its geographic position is critical to that organization’s existence.
The regulations governing the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District state that all members must share common borders. If Mono County were to withdraw from the district, the organization would be dissolved, as Inyo and Alpine counties share do not share continguous borders.
The ramifications of and possible responses to a dissolved Great Basin APCD, according to Control Officer Ted Schade, are varied.
“We could re-form some other way,” said Schade. “There are lots of weird options. The worst case is that Inyo and Alpine (and Mono) create their own districts,” he said.
Schade added that the unified district has more power over the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power – which is mandated to perform a number of dust-mitigation projects – than the individual counties would.
According to Hazard, the Mono County Board of Supervisors, in January, asked staff to come up with an “assessment and re-evaluation” of the county’s contract with the state to provide public and environmental health services.
“That contract has not been working out to our satisfaction,” Hazard said.
That’s why the Mono supervisors requested that staff look into Mono County’s membership to Great Basin. Part of that assessment is to look into “having air pollution control handled here in Mono County,” rather than by Great Basin.
The discussions about Mono’s membership with Great Basin kicked off late last summer when a group of Mono County farmers and ranchers went before the Board of Supervisors to inquire about getting “double-dipped” every time they grade their land.
According to Hazard, Mono County ranchers and farmers have been coughing up $100 to Mono County and $600 to the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District each time they receive a permit to grade their land. That $700 is to help mitigate dust and air pollution caused by the grading, but the residents were concerned that they were basically paying the same fee twice, for the same reason, to two different entities.
“We wanted to know why is that and what’s the difference,” Hazard said. He added that enforcement of the grading regulations is the responsibility of Mono County, not the APCD.
“We asked staff to bring that back as a report,” Hazard said. “We were just asking for information.”
Such requests are nothing new, Hazard noted.
“We do this with IMAH (Inyo Mono Association for the Handicapped) and Child Protective Services” and others, Hazard said. “We want to make sure we’re getting the best bang for our buck. This is a standard board inquiry.”
Schade explained that the APCD does not charge a grading fee. Rather, the district has what it calls a “secondary source fee” that it charges when a property owner develops land. “That covers all pollution that will be caused by the development in the future,” he said.
He added that, while Mono County would generate property tax off the developed land, Great Basin would not, so it charges a one-time flat rate of $150 per unit being developed.
“No one has ever complained to me about the fee,” Schade said. “I would be more than willing to talk to them.”
The Mono supervisors have not made any decision one way or the other regarding leaving the Great Basin Unified APCD.
“I don’t even have enough information to start to discuss that” because staff has not yet returned to the board with its report, Hazard said. “We don’t have a position because we haven’t had a debate,” he added, speaking for the Mono County Board of Supervisors.
County staff is expected to bring that report before the Mono County Board of Supervisors sometime in the near future, but Hazard said that an exact date for a discussion on the air pollution control matter has yet to be determined.
But, Hazard added, “it will come back through the regular agenda process” and be discussed at a public meeting of the Mono County Board of Supervisors.
“There is probably many, many advantages, including to the Air Pollution Board and Mono, Inyo and Alpine counties” if Mono County chooses to remain a member of that unified group, Hazard concluded, adding that the Mono board will do what is best for its county and constituents.
According to Schade, the Great Basin APCD alone “has the authority to make the City of Los Angeles fix the air pollution caused by their water gathering.”
He added that Inyo and Alpine counties, along with the Town of Mammoth Lakes, could organize a regional air pollution control district, incorporating portions of Mono County.
Mono County could opt to give the regional district jurisdiction over areas such as Mono Lake, where receding water levels expose lake-bed which causes dust pollution.
“District staff believes the most productive course of action is to discuss and address Mono County’s concerns,” Schade told the APCD board in a staff report earlier this month. “Of course, district staff will provide Mono County staff with any information they need for the analysis requested by their board.”
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 31 March 2008 )
|
|
|
|
