To know California is to appreciate her identity crisis: Is she
more a nation, a state, or some entity in between?
It should come as no surprise, then, that California’s
policymakers likewise find themselves in conflict — with each
other.
Take the example of education. Is it the domain of the Governor
and his administration, or the State Legislature, or the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, or citizens participating in
the initiative process on matters like vouchers and mandated school
funding?
As for initiatives, who has the final say — voters, or the men
and women they elect to office? Five years ago, here in California,
the public voted to limit marital status to heterosexual couples
only. But that didn’t stop the Legislature from recently trying to
legally sanction same-sex marriages.
Unfortunately, California’s environmental policy falls into the
same morass. Where there should be order and an organized line of
authority from the state to local level, competing agencies instead
do their best Alexander Haig imitation (“I’m in charge”). In this
case, one of the worst offenders happens to be the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which encompasses the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino.
At issue is a recent memorandum of understanding between the
California Air Resources Board — an important state agency — and
the Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway to reduce diesel
emissions in and around the state’s rail yards. It’s actually the
second such agreement of this type.
A previous accord inked seven years ago called for a 67%
reduction in locomotive nitrous-oxide emissions that contribute to
the formation of ozone (this year’s agreement could potentially
reduce particulate emissions by 15-20% over the next three
years).
Sounds like a win-win for the public, right? After all, this is
government and the private sector working together for cleaner
air.
Unfortunately, that’s not the view shared by the good folks at
the SCAQMD, who treated the environmental breakthrough with all the
charm of a T-Rex with a toothache. Officials with the local agency
claim the agreement “makes no sense.”
At a recent public hearing, SCAQMD board member Dennis Yates, in
a fit of pique, flung a set of documents to the ground, saying,
“You can take this and do that with it as far as I’m
concerned.”
It’s not the first time that SCAQMD has found itself in a
curious position. A decade ago, for example, the agency took on
smog in Southern California by championing a pair of programs:
RECLAIM (which allowed utilities to trade sulfur-dioxide and
nitrous-oxide credits) and the infamous Rule 1610 “Car Scrapping”
program, which enabled operators of large stationary sources to opt
out of Clean Air Act controls by paying owners of old, dirty cars
to take them off the road.
Both programs were lemons. RECLAIM barely reduced pollution; the
car-scrapping program led to widespread protests across Southern
California.
Still, the urge to merge — then derail — the state’s
intentions continue. The childish theatrics notwithstanding, here’s
what the agency’s temper tantrum demonstrates: in California, where
a line supposedly is drawn between state and local authority, it’s
the smaller fish who think they rule the sea. In the case of
railroads, federal and state governments have oversight, not a
smaller entity like the SCAQMD.
But that doesn’t stop the local agency from wanting to engage in
the matter. Why? Part of the reason is hubris: in California, the
sad legacy of excessive government is an instinct to over-regulate.
And there’s also a healthy dose of institutional bias.
For years, the SCAQMD has waged war on California’s business
community; thus the knee-jerk reflex when informed of a compact
between state government and the private sector.
Hubris, in fact, might help to explain SCAQMD’s lavish spending
on itself — both its leaders and the lobbyists they pay to protect
their status quo. According to various public records, the agency’s
notoriously high-handed executive director, Dr. Barry Wallerstein
(whose annual salary exceeds six-figures), has traveled on the
company dime to such swank getaways as the Resort at Squaw Creek
and Granlibakken (both at Lake Tahoe), La Quinta (Palm Springs) and
Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Resort (perhaps to test the air quality in
another state’s four-star resorts?).
The department also pays well to make sure it is heard in
Sacramento. According to the California Secretary of State’s
office, the SQAMD spent more than $590,000 in lobbying expenses
during the 2003-04 legislative session.
Call it protection money. The SCAQMD wants to make sure that its
funding remains secure (state and federal grants make up about 10%
of its budget), and that no impish lawmakers under the Capitol dome
dare pass new measures limiting the department’s authority.
Clearly, this is an agency that needs to be reined in. And it
begs a larger question: How should the Golden State clean up its
act as it pertains to environmental regulatory swagger?
First, if California politics is a jungle, then the state’s
policymakers need to revisit the law of the jungle. That means the
California Air Resources Board flexing its muscle and telling the
SCAQMD and other lesser meddling agencies to butt out of its
business.
Second, it’s time that California’s lawmakers grew up. There is
a role for regional agencies like the SCAQMD to play, helping the
state develop new policies based on good science, not bad
tempers.
Finally, citizens themselves have to become better engaged —
always a challenge in attention-distracted California. When
agencies overreach and, ironically, fail to protect the public’s
interest, the public should react by punishing the offending
officials. Smart government is a byproduct of smarter voters.
This latest environmental flap comes at an interesting juncture
in the history of California’s politics.
A special election takes place today — a test between the
Governor and Legislature as to who’s more in touch with voters.
Meanwhile, there’s another contest: Can different levels of
government work in tandem? Or will their competing egos stand in
the way of the nation-state establishing a better quality of
life?
For years, government environmental agencies have convinced us
that the polluters are the bad guys. But as SCAQMD’s bad behavior
shows, it’s more complicated than that. Green entities that are
also green with envy sometimes can be just as destructive. That’s
something to remember the next time you see an agency like the
SCAQMD in action.
Pogo had it right: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Bill Whalen is a research fellow at the Hoover
Institution, where he follows California and national
politics.
