Community Perspective
Air quality is the state’s job
Published Sunday, October 4, 2009
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!This Tuesday borough voters will be faced with a choice that was too difficult for our Borough Assembly to make — the choice of whether or not our borough government should take on the responsibility of researching, analyzing, modeling and controlling air quality as it relates to fine particulates under 2.5 microns in size. As one air quality program comes to an end after 36 years, do we really want to be starting a new air quality program that could last for another 30 years? Does the borough have the authority and, more importantly, the resources to undertake this responsibility?
Article 7, section 4, of the Alaska Constitution requires the state Legislature to promote and protect the public health. It is the state Legislature that has both the statutory authority and funding to effect the needed changes that will truly improve our air quality and protect public health. The state agency that would bear this responsibility is the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. A few of the responsibilities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Alaska DEC are to ensure that our drinking water is safe, that restaurants meet health standards and that waste products are disposed of properly. It seems only logical that a health issue such as fine particulate pollution would fall under the authority of the Alaska DEC air quality division rather than the borough transportation department.
With one of the highest property tax rates in the state, the cost to the borough if it assumes this added responsibility should be of utmost concern. I have to applaud the borough Transportation Department for securing grants to pay for a large portion of the research costs to date. The reality, however, is that sooner or later these funding sources will dry up and the grants will end. Borough residents will then be left paying for a borough run program either through increased property taxes or registration and permit fees on our wood stoves.
After four years of data collection and research the consensus from the panel of scientists and experts at the recent air quality symposium was that there are more questions than answers and that more research needs to be done. The borough administration seemed to ignore this recommendation and instead chose to move forward with plans to implement a draconian wood stove enforcement plan the very next day.
The Alaska DEC on the other hand has realized that they do not have enough information to be creating public policy and is already planning on funding additional studies this winter to get a better picture of where the particulates are coming from. One big question that needs to be answered is where the high levels of sulfur and zinc particles are coming from. Probable sources include high-sulfur heating oil, coal-fired power plants and the widespread burning of waste oil.
With state control we will not have to worry about the assembly passing new laws at 1 a.m. in the morning as we recently witnessed. This is from the Alaska DEC explaining their planning process:
“There are several aspects to the planning process. The department would continue efforts to develop the necessary technical information for the plan and evaluate the various sources of PM2.5 in the community. DEC would outline a range of control options to consider including in the plan and these control programs would be evaluated for costs, benefits, and other local considerations. DEC would provide opportunities for local input to the development and selection of control programs. Given our role in air quality permitting, DEC already plans to evaluate the power plants and industrial facilities to assist in determining if any additional controls are warranted to address PM2.5. If needed, DEC would develop regulations for implementing control programs in the plan. Ultimately the implementation plan would be drafted to meet federal requirements including all the relevant technical information, control programs, and the analytical demonstration of attainment.”
For anyone who burns wood, the choice is clear: “Let the state do it!”
Justin Powell recently formed the Interior Wood Burners Association.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Nice work, Justin. You've expressed a clear, logical rational as to why we must vote 'no' on Tuesday. Thanks for the good work.
Also, as Matt Want pointed out, the people at the borough saying we have a problem would lose their job if we didn't have a problem.
The State doesn't have a job to protect, they have enough dead weight sitting around that could earn their paycheck for a change.
Justin - thanks for all you do. Here is a guy that receives no benefit for all his hard work. He doesn't "spin" issues like our local politicians. He states undisputed facts that the borough never even attempts to address.
VOTE FOR STATE CONTROL NEXT TUESDAY. Our local "bud drivers & machanics" have showed they have no clue about this issue, buy suggesting to control or ban wood stoves before actually studying the problems of 2.5 particulates!
If anyone thinks the State can do a better enforcement than the local government - they are right, The KEY WORD IS ENFORCEMENT - that the State will do and do well. But if we want some common sense approach we better tackle it ourselves. When DOT planning was in the region we got 28 percent of the highway funding budget - now with it in Juneau we're down to the single digits.
The fact is the State Government has a lot more legislators from South Central to listen to than we have to voice our needs. And more often than not our needs are contrary to Anchorage's wants (no competion from the interior).
For example last year energy crisis in our community was answered by giving $1200 to all PFD folks everywhere - South Central had no energy crisis - so our crisis was real, but it was a wind fall for South Central - the power of politics.
I hope us wood burners keeps us in control - and since when did the independant Alaskan want control from on high - lets keep it here where we can at least speak our mind - ever try getting anything out of the legislature? Think VERY CAREFULLY before you vote.
Bob - I agree with your statement with one big IF. I think we would have better control our air quality issues IF we could trust our politicians and local air quality "experts". Sadly we can't. Look at our assembly, do you really want them making decisions on a technical issue like air quality? I know I don't. I don't like state control but unfortantly Whitaker and the assmembly put us in this situation. We have to take the lesser of two evils.
I will vote no.
Has anyone considered the possibility that this new air quality issue was identified at about the same time plans were being made to scrap the IM program? Could there be a relationship? Could borough bureaucrats be worried about loosing cushy government jobs?
Nah, nothing like that could ever happen.
The decision was NOT too difficult for the Assembly to make, they simply wanted to give the public a voice.
Our elected officials are GIVING US A CHANCE T0 SPEAK AND BE HEARD.
Instead of complaining, take this as your opportunity to voice your opinion and vote for your preference.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.