The Supreme Court has refused a case against air quality rules in the San Joaquin Valley. The National Association of Home Builders had appealed to the court to overturn the rule which enforced restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and air particulates. Additionally, it required management and controls on air pollution.

The Indirect Sources Rule Is A Challenge To Developers

In 2005 legislation set up the San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District in an attempt at reducing the amount of airborne particulates and smog in the area. Rule 9510, or the Indirect Sources Review (ISR) rule, was set up to push large scale developers toward including access to more public transportation and other features that would result in less air pollution in the valley. Companies who do not sufficiently comply are forced to pay fines that support pollution offsets.

The key issue at stake is the effect the Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley area smog has on respiratory disease, such as asthma and lung cancer. The Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley area has among the dirtiest air in the United States. This is partly due to the region’s dependence on cars for transportation but also simply because of the geographic landscape of the area, which is predisposed to collect smog. Legislation such as the ISR has been enacted to mitigate these effects and the result has been a drop in the number of Stage 1 smog alters from hundreds daily, to a more manageable few.

Over 25 million people live in the vicinity of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley. The rule was created to coax developers into placing concerns over air quality and smog centrally within their projects and to require better access to public transportation locations to cut down on the number of cars and other vehicles on the road. The ISR rule has been in effect since 2005 but not without controversy.

Previous Challenges

In 2007 the National Association of Home Builders previously filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Fresno contesting the regulations. The suit found that the Clean Air Act allowed for regulation by the district over land use that sufficiently related to air quality. On hearing the case had been struck down in September 2008, District Counsel Philip Jay said: “This decision affirms that we have the authority to regulate the effects of motor vehicles and equipment attracted to development sites,” said District Counsel Philip Jay.

The decision was followed by a similar action of another challenge by a developer affiliated coalition. The coalition included the Building Industry Association, the Valley Taxpayer’s Association and the Coalition of Urban Renewal Excellence, which was also unsuccessful.

It is hoped that with the latest challenge being thrown out, the rule can stand and developers can respect the importance of regulation for clean air and greenhouse gas mitigation. Air quality is something that requires management and the improvement in air quality since the ISR rule was put in place is a testament to that.