Is it fair for the EPA to change its air-quality policies in a state without input from the citizens who will be affected by them? That's the question many in Utah are asking as a lawsuit filed against the EPA by a group called the "WildEarth Guardians" goes to trial.
The Guardians are calling for an interstate commission to address elevated ozone levels in the West. Their lawsuit alleges that the EPA failed to issue timely federal implementation plans in the absence of individual plans from California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
WildEarth Guardians is challenging the failure of the EPA to force western states to limit interstate transport of pollution. The Clean Air Act required the EPA to adopt regulations to force these states to limit interstate transport of pollution by 2007. AS of 2010, the EPA has yet to take action to clear the air.
“It’s very alarming to us that when we have a [state implementation plan] for air quality in the state of Utah and they have proposed to do something and haven’t involved our state agency in that process at all, that’s just absolutely wrong,” said Thomas Bingham, president of the Utah Manufacturers Association. “We are very concerned that they haven’t even contacted them to find out what their response is to these allegations. It appears they are looking to approve the thing without any input from the state of Utah.”
The UMA Air Quality Subcommittee has reviewed the proposed consent decree from the EPA and found several serious issues for Utah manufacturers in the civil action and EPA proposal to consent.
“Basically it appears the EPA is assuming they have a legal responsibility or liability to approve this consent decree when we think they clearly do not,” said Binghan. “They assume some things in there that we don’t believe have been demonstrated.”
The proposed Consent Decree is intended to resolve the suit brought in federal court in Colorado, and to challenge the provisions of Utah’s approved SIP concerning excess emissions resulting from the breakdown of pollution control equipment.
“It is our understanding that, notwithstanding the federal Clean Air Act’s emphasis on a partnership between EPA and the states in administering and enforcing the Act, the State of Utah was neither brought in as a party to the litigation nor was the State included in the negotiations leading to the proposed Consent Decree,” Bingham said. “We think that all the affected stake holders should have an opportunity for input before they make a decision on this. Just because there is a lawsuit out there doesn’t mean they have to panic and do something.”
