By RICH GREENE, Red Bluff Daily News Staff Writer -
The Tehama County Air Pollution Control District and CalFire need to better communicate and the district needs to be more consistent with its fine schedule, the 2012-13 Grand Jury recommends in its report.
The Grand Jury reviewed the Air Pollution Control District focusing on the issuance of burn permits, reports and complaints, investigations, enforcement and documentation of illegal burns.
The review included how CalFire responded to reported burns and how its department documents and reports incidents to the Air Pollution Control District.
The Grand Jury found the latter to be an informal process where CalFire personnel who have responded to illegal burns may complete an agency report with violations for the Air Pollution Control District.
This typically happens with illegal residential burns, where the Grand Jury found the Air Pollution Control District is often reliant upon citizen complaints or notification from fire departments to learn about burn violations.
However there is no established procedure for the prompt delivery of reports.
The Grand Jury found while verbal explanations of violations and warnings form CalFire may be sufficient in some instances, the Air Pollution Control District is often delayed from hearing about more serious violations because of the lack of an established procedure.
The Grand Jury recommends the two agencies meet to agree on a set of communication procedures and action plans to implement them.
The Grand Jury also made recommendations regarding how the Air Pollution Control District deals with violations.
It found documentation related to potential illegal agricultural burns in the past three years were sometimes signed only by district employees and not the Air Pollution Control Officer.
The Grand Jury said it was unclear to them if all correspondence issued by the Air Pollution Control District was therefore reviewed and authorized by the control officer.
The Grand Jury recommends that the control officer or a designee sign all correspondence addressing alleged violations.
This would ensure consistency with both the professional quality of correspondence issued and provide an authority source for response by the recipient, the Grand Jury's report reads.
The Grand Jury also found inconsistencies between the fines paid by different violators.
Fines not determined by the California Health and Safety Code are set by the air pollution control officer.
Those fines are often based on the ability to pay based on income status as stated by the violator or other factors such as degree of violation or intent of the burn.
Fine amounts seem to be based on negotiating abilities between APCD and the alleged violator, rather than a consistent and predictable table of fines, the Grand Jury's report reads.
The Grand Jury recommends the Air Pollution Control District establish and document its level of fines, possibly still taking into account discretionary procedures such as infractions, degree of burning and intent.
However the document would eliminate the appearance of arbitrariness, favoritism or bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment