Unifying of air quality agencies OK’d

Friday, Feb. 23, 2001 | 10:20 a.m.

The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition passed a resolution calling for a unified, single air quality agency Thursday, but the measure passed over the dissent of several coalition members.

"Some of us have some questions about the creation of a new bureaucratic layer and the costs associated with that," said coalition member and Clark County Commissioner Myrna Williams.

The coalition passed the resolution after presentations by two consulting firms. The first identified "serious management deficiencies" in the Clark County Health District's Air Quality Division; the second said an agency that merged the Air Quality Division with Clark County's air quality planning operations would help keep the air cleaner over the region.

According to Jeremy Aguero, an analyst working with Hobbs, Ong and Associates, a fundamental problem with the present system is that plans are drawn up by the county planners, and rules are required by federal, state and county agencies, but the implementation has to be done by the Air Quality Division.

The health district agency may not have all the resources to effectively enforce the rules, he said.

The problem is acute now because of plans submitted by the county to the federal Environmental Protection Agency to control air pollution from carbon monoxide and fine dust.

The EPA has to accept the plans -- and the enforcement mechanisms -- or the region stands to lose local planning control and potentially hundreds of millions of federal highway funding annually.

The resolution passed by the planning coalition, which will go to the state Legislature, does not specify what form or governance the new unified agency will take.

But Williams, joined by Henderson Councilwoman Amanda Cyphers and North Las Vegas Councilwoman Shari Buck, said she isn't convinced a new agency is needed.

"I think we're moving too fast," she said.

Cyphers agreed. She said she might support a unified agency in the future, but she is "not 100 percent positive that there might not be other options out there."