By Alan Pryor –
By Alan Pryor – Background – Prior to the recent deliberations in July, the NRC considered the results of 2 additional studies performed last year in Davis and presented to the NRC in June.
2) The 2nd study was an analysis of citizen complaints performed by Dr. Cahill. Although there were substantive disagreements between this author and Dr. Cahill about the data used in and/or excluded from the study and the implications of the results, there was consensus that there were a number of credible nearest neighbor impacts that were shown by the study. Further, the per capita complaint frequency was far greater than that seen in the Sacramento AQMD ,which collectively was considered to be evidence of localized wood smoke accumulations in Davis as predicted by modeling studies. See the separate previous Davis Vanguard article for more complete reporting of the results of this study – see June 3, 2010 Vanguard article.
Additionally, the NRC reviewed a statistical analysis done by Alan Pryor. This study showed that even if the YSAQMD Don’t Light Tonight alert days included mandatory restrictions rather than voluntary calls to stop burning wood as is currently the case, the average PM2.5 concentrations in East Davis would only decrease by about 5%. Further, the East Davis air quality would still be the worst in the entire region with the greatest number of days in excess of Federal PM2.5 24-hour standards.
The NRC unanimously felt this collective body of new information only reinforced the need for stringent mandatory wood burning controls in Davis. Further, the results from these new studies reaffirmed the position taken by the NRC last year that the greatest risk from wood burning is not regional non-compliance. Rather, it is the potential for excessive wood smoke exposure to individuals located in close downwind proximity to wood burners. The recommendations by the NRC to the Council again attempts to address this problem
Overall Strategy
The entire Recommended Wood Smoke Ordinance, including the Technical Justification and the entire copy of the proposed ordinance, can be downloaded by clicking on the following link.
The newly-proposed wood smoke recommendation and draft ordinance is very similar to that previously proposed by the NRC to the Council last year. It is based both on projected wind-speed and projected background PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) to try to keep cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 exposures by all Davis residents to below the Federal limit. It is not just concerned with regional PM2.5 for compliance purposes which is the objective of the YSAQMD Don’t Light Tonight voluntary program.
The overall strategy is to restrict all wood burning when background PM2.5 concentrations are predicted to be in excess of safe levels. When projected background PM2.5 is not projected to be at unsafe levels, burning of certain types of wood-burning appliances are allowed at different minimum wind speeds as follows:
- Effective November 1, 2010, wood-burning will only be allowed on “Allowable Burn Days”, only using seasoned wood with a moisture content less than 20% by weight or pellets or manufactured wood products specifically manufactured for use in wood burning or pellet stoves, and only if wood burning produces no visible wood smoke emissions beyond an initial 0.5 hour start-up period .
- Each Allowable Burn Day will extend for a 24 hour period from midnight to midnight the next day. The determination of an “Allowable Burn Day” will be based on a forecasted average daily regional PM2.5 concentration of 25 ug/m3 or less as made by the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District using its existing methodology.
- The type of wood-burning appliance allowed for use on any Allowable Burn Day will be based on a forecasted average hourly wind speed for the intervening period of 6 PM to midnight on the day in question as made by the National Weather Service. This will allow “one-day before” announcement of “Allowable Burn Days” to provide timely notification of media and other means of information dissemination and allow citizens to plan one day ahead with respect to planned wood-burning activities.
- Stage III Allowable Burn Days – Only Use of High Efficiency Wood Burning Appliances and Pellet Stoves Allowed (i.e. those with hourly PM2.5 emissions of less than 2.0 g/hour) – The forecasted average wind speed for the 6 PM to midnight period the following day is less than or equal to 5 mph AND the forecasted average daily regional PM2.5 concentration for the next day is 25 ug/m3 or less
- Stage II Allowable Burn Days – Only Use of EPA Phase II-Approved and High Efficiency Wood Burning Appliances and Pellet Stoves Allowed – The forecasted average wind speed for the 6 PM to midnight period the following day is greater than 5 mph and less than or equal to 10 mph AND the forecasted average daily regional PM2.5 concentration the next day is 25 ug/m3 or less.
- Stage I Allowable Burn Days – Use of All Wood Burning Appliances Allowed – The forecasted average wind speed for the 6 PM to midnight period the following day is greater than 10 mph AND the forecasted average daily regional PM2.5 concentration for the next day is less than 25 ug/m3.
Changes from Previous Plan
The Recommended Ordinance approved by the NRC and sent to the City Council was similar to that sent last year in that it used projected wind speed as a main determinant of when EPA-approved stoves and/or open hearth fireplaces were allowed to be used. However, the new Recommended Ordinance differs from the previous proposal in several key ways:
1 Ultra-efficient wood stoves (producing less that 2.0 g/hr of PM2.5) and pellet stoves will be allowed to be used under all wind conditions providing only that projected regional PM2.5 air quality is not excessive. – The previous proposal only allowed wood burning once next-day PM2.5 concentrations were projected to be less than 25 ug/m3 AND projected minimum wind speeds reached 5 mph. This current recommendation proposes that wood burning appliances with efficiencies substantially greater than EPA Phase II-Approved wood burning appliances be allowed only if next-day PM2.5 concentrations were projected to be less than 25 ug/m3 regardless of projected wind speeds. An EPA Phase II-Approved wood stove has a maximum PM2.5 emission rate of 7.5 gm/hr vs. less than 2.0 gm/hr for highly efficient wood and pellet stoves as defined in this Recommended Ordinance. This compromise was suggested as a reasonable course of action in recognition of the comparably lower PM emissions of these more efficient appliances. It is also consistent with the wood dispersion modeling methodology employed in setting minimum wind speeds for less efficient wood burning appliances. Staff expressed concerns that this 3-tier program was too cumbersome and complicated but the NRC was reminded that the Sacramento AQMD also currently has a 3-tier wood burning ordinance based on forecasted regional PM2.5 concentrations and they do not find that unworkable. In fact, the existing 3-tier program was recently evaluated and renewed by the Board of the Sacramento AQMD.
2) No 6-hour burn limitation per day is now proposed – The previous proposed wood burning ordinance submitted by the NRC recommended that there be a six-hour limitation on wood-burning on any one “Allowable Burn Day”. This was to prevent excessive build-up of wood smoke over the course of a day if someone was burning 24/7 that could otherwise result in total exposure by a nearby neighbor to the wood burner that would be in excess of federal standards. While this author expressed concerns that the 6-hour burn limitation is recommended for public safety concerns and to protect neighbors from potential constant wood smoke exposure, the current proposal eliminates the 6-hour burn limitation requirement because of the expressed concern of enforcement difficulty.
3) All wood burning must be done with no visible wood smoke emissions beyond an initial start-up period. – This is consistent with the regulations of other Air Quality Management Districts that similarly prohibit visible wood smoke emissions as a proxy to ensure clean burning methods are employed by the wood burner. If visible smoke is seen, this means that gross amounts of excess wood smoke are being produced by the wood burner. These restrictive burning regulations are in place and enforceable regardless of the type of wood burning appliance used or the meteorological conditions during which such wood burning appliances are used. After all, we do not allow vehicles to drive through town belching clouds of exhaust, so why should stationary fireplaces be allowed to similarly grossly pollute our air, particularly when the entire amount of smoke is directed at down wind neighbors rather than being dispersed by driving through town.
4) No eventual phase-out of Open Hearth/Non-EPA Approved appliances is now proposed – Previously, the NRC proposed that use of open hearth fireplaces and non-EPA Phase II – Approved appliances be phased out after two years. This was consistent with the Sacramento, the Bay Area, and the Yolo-Solano AQMD’s and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Model Wood Smoke ordinances which all similarly proposed such eventual phase-outs. The current NRC proposal does not recommend such a phase-out but instead recognizes that substantial protections are afforded by the minimum wind speed criteria proposed for use of non EPA Phase II-Approved wood burning appliances.
Based on actual average evening wind speed and PM2.5 concentrations during the 2008-2009 wood burning season, use of the various types of wood burning appliances would have been allowed or disallowed on the following number of days during that 120-day wood burning season.
No Wood Burning Allowed – 6 Days of the 120 Day Wood Burning Season.
Stage III Allowable Burn Days (Only High Efficiency wood burning appliances would be allowed) – On 114 days of the 120 day wood burning season (95% of the time).
Stage II Allowable Burn Days (Only EPA Phase II-Approved and High Efficiency wood burning appliances would be allowed) – On 64 days of the 120 day wood burning season (55% of the time).
Stage I Allowable Burn Days (All wood burning appliances would be allowed) – On 16 days of the 120 day wood burning season (14% of the time).
This is also shown in the following table:
There is still the exemption for all type of wood-burning equipment to operate without restrictions whenever there is a power failure and conventional home heating equipment is inoperative. Wood stoves designed and used exclusively for cooking would also continued to be exempt from the ordinance as would all fireplaces and stoves that use natural gas or propane for fuel.
Accessing forecasted wind speeds from the National Weather Service can be automated via the internet and forecasting the next day’s PM2.5 levels, will be made by YSAQMD. The subsequent determination of whether the following day is an “Allowable Burn Day” is made and the appropriate stage can then be automatically and quantitatively determined. This information will then be transmitted for posting on the City’s website, voice mail system, and/or citizen and media email distribution lists as determined by Staff.
The ordinance would be enforced only with warnings the first year, and a permit would be required for wood-burning beyond the first year to aid in law enforcement by minimizing the number of on-site calls.
Author’s Notes
Those citizens that choose to or have invested in the most efficient, top-of-the-line wood burning equipment will still be able to use their wood-burning appliances about 95% of the time in an average year. The most heavily-polluting devices, open hearth fireplaces, will only be allowed to operate about 14% of the time, when winds are sufficiently high to adequately disperse the large quantities of smoke that they emit. But that is still far less stringent than recommendations in the Model Wood-burning Ordinances of every major Air Quality Management District which uniformly provide for eventual phase-outs of ALL non-EPA compliant wood stoves. In some jurisdictions in Northern California, use of such wood burning devices is already prohibited regardless of weather conditions.
One interesting aspect of the debate before the NRC was that Staff did not challenge any of the scientific or technical or public health aspects of the NRC’s justification for recommending this new ordinance to the Council. Indeed, Staff was specifically queried if they had objections to any technical aspects of the Recommended Ordinance and they were unable to provide any specific response. Instead, all of Staff’s responses revolved around their objections that they had insufficient resources to implement the new ordinance. Unfortunately, the claims Staff made were either unsubstantiated or just plain outright wrong.
For instance, Staff claimed that the outreach program would cost up to $20,000 annually. There was no justification of this figure and Staff did not provide a breakdown when requested by the NRC. Further, Staff claimed that they would have to have a staff person devoted to the everyday task of obtaining projected wind speed data including having a person available on weekends to do such work. Members of the NRC immediately disputed that and unanimously agreed that the process could be easily automated with a simple script written by any competent webmaster. Further, Staff involved in this matter are employed by the Public Works Department, which has personnel working 24/7 at the Waste Treatment Plant and on-call to respond to water supply emergencies. These personnel could also be used to obtain projected PM2.5 and/or wind speed data in the unlikely event the computer automated system ever failed.
In summary, this author found Staff’s objections to the Recommended Ordinance to be specious and/or unsubstantiated and based simply on the fact that they did not want to take on the extra work involved in the implementation of the Ordinance if adopted. There were no objections voiced by Staff speaking to the technical determination or justification or public health aspects of the Recommended Ordinance. I do not believe Staff’s protestations that they do not have the time or money to implement the Recommended Ordinance to be a sufficient reason to block its adoption, given the horrible quality of East Davis air as measured by the California Air Resources Board this last winter and the obvious detrimental impact on public health of Davis citizens. It is far past time for the Davis Council to stop ignoring the wood-burning problem for political expediency and to have Davis join the 95% of the population of Central California who are now subject to mandatory restrictions on burning.
“Those citizens that choose to or have invested in the most efficient, top-of-the-line wood burning equipment will still be able to use their wood-burning appliances about 95% of the time in an average year.” Should read “Those citizens who can afford…” Commissions are a major source of hot air and a waste of public monies.
Dr. Cahill’s findings and analysis should be the basis for the Council’s decisions on this issue unless there is some evidence of his having an “ax to grind” here. Alan Pryor has openly acknowledged, if it was not apparent from his writings on the Vanguard, that he is a “zealot”(my word choice) on the issue of banning wood-burning. The NRC is a volunteer citizen committee. We know little about the member’s credentials and personal and political dynamics in deliberating this issue. As to the staff not challenging the data and its scientific interpretation by the NRC, it is not their role nor, I suspect, do they necessarily have the expertise to do so. The Council contracted with Dr. Cahill as their expert consultant.
biddlin: “Commissions are a major source of hot air and a waste of public monies.”
It is often commissions that put a check on some of the foolishness by City Council. That said, I don’t really see how such an ordinance can be enforced as a practical matter… enlighten me…
“Should read “Those citizens who can afford…” Commissions are a major source of hot air and a waste of public monies.”
Biddlin, for once we agree. I’m getting real tired of a minority few who want to shove their agenda down the public’s throat.
ERM-enforcement would most likely involve code enforcement officers responding to citizen complaints, so if your neighbor is mad at you, they simply call and say,”Elaine was burning wood this morning.” Of course they remain anonymous and the burden is on you to prove that it was an acceptable day or that you didn’t burn the wood. Appeals would be heard by an official who is paid from the very coffers fed by fines for wood burning. Guess who wins.
There is no link to the ordinance. How does this ordinance impact woodburning and charcoal outdoor cooking fireplaces and BBQ’s?
To Davis Enophile – Re: “There is no link to the ordinance. How does this ordinance impact woodburning and charcoal outdoor cooking fireplaces and BBQ’s?”
The article above states “Wood stoves designed and used exclusively for cooking would also continued to be exempt from the ordinance”. The recommended ordinance is even more broadly written and clearly exempts backyard BBQs. All cooking appliances are exempt.
I had submitted a full copy of the ordinance so readers could link to it but David Greenwald said he could not accomodate that posting. I agree that it is important that readers should have access to it. You can get a copy from Sue Gedestad at the City’s Public Works Dept.
To: ERM – Re: “I don’t really see how such an ordinance can be enforced as a practical matter… enlighten me”
A great deal of attention was paid to the enforcement issue by the NRC. Enforcement of a wood burning ordinance is actually technically more simple that enforcing a noise ordinance. The following passages were taken from the Recommendation sent to Council – “Enforcement of these provisions would be on a complaint basis, with the City Police Department being the responders. It would be treated by the police as any other nuisance complaint thus response by the Police Department will only be on an “as available” basis. We recommend that the ordinance only be enforced with “warnings” during the 2010-2011 burn season to allow residents time to become knowledgeable with the provisions of the ordinance through a Staff directed outreach program…Upon receipt of a complaint from a neighbor, the police department staff can simply check the City’s website to determine the Allowable Burn status and then review its records to see what level of permit, if any, is on file for the residence which is indicated to be burning wood. If this records search is inconclusive or if an exact address of the home burning wood is not known, then the police officer can be dispatched in the field and use a simple infrared viewer focused on a chimney to identify if a wood-burning appliance is in use at the suspected residence – much like a decibel meter is now used to determine if public noise is excessive. By doing so, the police officer could then instantly determine if the wood-burning activity is lawful without ever even leaving their patrol vehicles requiring even less effort to enforce than a noise complaint which requires an officer to leave their car to get a property line noise level reading. This could result in substantial time savings to law enforcement officials.”
Do the police in Davis really have so much free time that they can be dispatched to a wood burning call ? Do they already have the infrared viewer and the training to use it ? How often do the viewers require service or calibration ? What material evidence would the officers have to present in court and how would the accused be allowed to face their accuser and challenge the “evidence” ? How does this translate into ” substantial time savings to law enforcement officials.” ? It sounds like it translates into more work for the police and money for the general fund, at the expense of taxpayers.
To: Biddlin – Re: “Do the police in Davis really have so much free time that they can be dispatched to a wood burning call?”
Wood burning is an acknowledged health hazard by virtually every medical authority that has weighed it. Noise is an inconvenience and bothersome. Should the police have time to respond to a noise complaint from you about a raucous party next door? What if someone dumps trash on your lawn? Should the police respond to that? What if your next door neighbor’s leave their cars running in their driveway belching out smoky exhauset that wafts right into your window? Do the police have time to respond to that? I find it amusing that people can justify to themselves that the only thing that police should rightfully respond to are things that they do not like happening to them. I suspect that you would feel quite differently about wood smoke if you had to tape your windows and sliding doos shut every winter to keep from being fumigated by your neighbor’s serial burning. Of if your lovely backyard party suddenly lost half your guests and the remainder had to move inside and close all the doors and windows to escape from being fumigated by your neighbor’s wood smoke. That’s just a guess, although those exact same things happen every winter here in Davis. If you are not so affected I would suggest you consider yourself lucky instead of “right”.
To rusty49 – Re: “I’m getting real tired of a minority few who want to shove their agenda down the public’s throat.”
Who says we are a minority just because you don’t agree with us. I have often asked the PW Dept to do a professional survey of Davis residents to determine how they feel about wood smoke in the air. Guess what?…It has never been done! What we do know is that the Americal Lung Ass., Breathe California, a number of Cahill’s “non-retired” atmospheric scientist peers at UCD, and a host of prominant physicians and medical researchers have all written to the Council specifically endorsing this Recommendation. There have been NO medical experts opposing the ordinance and NO atmospheric scientists, save Tom Cahill, who have oppossed it. All their letters of support are included in the Recommendation should you care to take the time to read it before taking such a strident attitude.
To Davisite2 – Re: “Dr. Cahill’s findings and analysis should be the basis for the Council’s decisions on this issue unless there is some evidence of his having an “ax to grind” here.”
I am not sure if Tom Cahill has an ax to gring but he is an acknowledged wood burner. The problem is that Tom Cahill has said some widely contradictory things before Council. He is on record as saying he opposes mandatory restrictions but also he has specifically told some Councilmembers that he supports mandatory restrictions. He has said that all our wood smoke problem is due to regional influences but in the next breath says that there are credible cases of nearest neighbor impacts that represent the greatest wood-burning danger to people. He has said that wood smoke is not all that harmful but he has also said that some neighbors who constantly burn can “fumigate” their neighbors homes potentially cause excessive exposure to the detriment of their health. So you have a choice. You can take Cahill’s sole word (whatever that inconsistent word happens to be at the moment) or you take take the word of every other medical organization and authorities and atmospheric scientists that have supported this Recommended ordinance and mandatory restrictions. If you’re a wood burner, though, I am guessing you will take the word of anyone who supports your continued “right” to burn regardless of the scientific merits of the argument.
alanpryor-For years when I lived in midtown Sacramento, I had to suck the burn-off from rice stubble on the west side of the river. When my neighbors throw a loud party, I either go over and join in, ask them to quiet down or put ear plugs in. Not everyone wants government in their business.
Alan Pryor says: “I am not sure if Tom Cahill has an ax to gring but he is an acknowledged wood burner.”
Oh no!…not an acknowledged wood-burner!… and it’s DR. Cahill, not TOM, which I assume speaks to his credentials as an expert in the field. What is now being claimed is that the testing left large data holes that throw doubt on Dr. Cahill’s conclusions. What the NRC should be recommending is that the Council consider further testing to fill these alleged data gaps.
alan: How can we read the proposal without going in to City Hall? Doesn’t the city staff put such documents on-line. David certainly could accommodate your link even if the document is much too long to post here. Thanks.
“Who says we are a minority just because you don’t agree with us.”
OK Mr. Pryor, I say let’s put it to a vote and let the chips fall where they may, that seems the way Davis likes to do business, ie: Measure R and Target. You know you’d never go for that because your proposal would go down in flames, pardon the pun.
“I am not sure if Tom Cahill has an ax to gring but he is an acknowledged wood burner.”
And what axe do you have to grind Mr. Pryor?
Burn a fire on a cold winter day and the police might come knocking on your door. Heck, it could Christmas morning with the kids all in pajamas and holding their hot chocolate. Will they need a search permit to come in and inspect your fireplace? Will they have to inspect your wood pile to check for the moisture content? Sounds like something Nazi’s would do.
“Sounds like something Nazi’s would do.”
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law[/url]
17 messages in. Not bad, rusty.
Thanks Don, I thought I’d try and use that one because I’ve seen the Liberals throw that out on several occurrences here. I was actually laughing when I wrote it.
To Rusty49 – Re: “What ax do you have to grind?”
1) Well for starters, I think it detestable that some people have to tape their doors and windows closed during each winter because of wood burners who won’t stop.
2) I think it is abhorent that some people have moved from their homes becuase they could not handle their neighbor’s smoke and they would not stop.
3)I think it is terrible that some people can’t use their own back yards or take walks down their street without being forced back into their own homes because of wood smoke.
4) I think it is criminal to have the worst air in the entire region and continue to subject our seniors and kids to that without taking responsible action to do something about it.
5) I think it is irresponsible to continue to burn wood despite the proven harmful effects your activities may have on the community and your neighbors.
Those are just a few of the axes I have to grind.
Re: “Sounds like something the Nazis would do”
Sounds like you have taken a page from the tea-bagger manual =>. Call anyone who tries to improve the environment or people’s lot in life a “Nazi”. Shades of Sarah Palin!
BTW – All sorts of data is coming out recently showing kids of habitual wood burners are more likely to have asthma and respiratory problems just as if their parents were cigarette smokers. If you don’t care about your neighbors maybe think about your kids.
“an acknowledged wood burner.” How can one go on with such a label attached. Think of the poor man, perhaps buying matches at the Target, being followed and taunted by clean well dressed children,” Wood burner, wood burner.” I wonder if that’s better or worse than “known meat eater.” or “verified fossil fuel user.” PC run amok.
Actually Mr. Pryor I took a page out of the Liberal Democrat handbook and all the pictures they had of Bush portrayed as Hitler and a Nazi when they protested.
Are you the supposed victim of a neighborhood burner as you call them?
Have you complained to city authorities because of this burner?
See, I don’t know your situation and whether you have a personal axe to grind or not, but you sure put it out there that Mr. Cahill might have one to grind because he’s a wood burner.
Funny how you take offense to the Nazi comment then throw out the tea-bagger slang.
Yes, let’s try to avoid pejorative characterizations, please.
Sorry Don, as part of my recovery, I admit I’m a serial pejorative characterizer. Step one, out of the way.
Godwin’s Law: what a hoot.
I may be misinterpreting what I’m reading, but it appears someone could be found in violation of the ordinance for burning wood during a prohibition period that is established based on forecasts of wind and PM2.5 when in fact the time of the cited violation the actual wind and PM2.5 would permit burning of wood. With the noise ordinance, a person is in violation due to actual audible/measurable noise as experienced by the enforcement officer. But in the case of this ordinance, a police officer might be in the position of issuing a citation for what ultimately amounts to a forecast, not an actual condition. Am I wrong?
To Davis Enophile – Re “…a police officer might be in the position of issuing a citation for what ultimately amounts to a forecast, not an actual condition. Am I wrong?”
You are correct. Every AQMD originally started out by issuing “same day” forecasts at around noon in which they would advise people if burning was allowed that evening. They found that they were not effectively getting the word out about wood burning status because their announcements were too late in the day for the major media outlets (TV, radio, newspapers) to get into their evening editions. Gradually, they have all migrated to “prior day” forecasts to allow all the appropriate media enough time to transmit the information. The Yolo-Solano AQMD made this change starting in the 08-09 wood burning season.
Prior day forecasts would presumably be more prone to error than same day forecasts, obviously. In fact I did a statistical analysis of the accuracy of same day vs prior day forecasts in the YSAQMD and it is clear that is the case. What some AQMDs have done is issued revised forecasts if the prior day forecasts called for a No-Burn day while the same day forecast showed a different picture…say a storm front moved in earlier than expected and mixed up the stagnant air with increased wind speeds. Thus, the AQMDs have occasionally changed a “No-Burn” Day to an “OK to Burn” Day in this manner using an updated same day forecast. But they have never changed an “OK to Burn” Day to a “No Burn” Day on the day in question based on a revise same-day forecast because of the obvious enforcement difficulties.
alan pryor: “Prior day forecasts would presumably be more prone to error than same day forecasts, obviously.”
So guilty until proven innocent? This really goes to the credibility of evidence… Also, enforcement is on an “availability” basis. The police don’t even enforce the noise ordinance, as evidenced by the ongoing daycare debacle, so what makes you think they are going to enforce a no- burn ordinance? I see all kinds of problems written all over this…
To ERM – Re: “I see all kinds of problems written all over this…”
Firstly, the AQMD that have the responsibility of enforcing these laws for years have not had major enforcement problems because the majority of people simply comply with the new law. I certainly think we can expect Davisites to behave similarly because we’re hardly a hotbed of civil disobediance here.
Secondly no law is perfect nor enforced 100%. If you applied your implied logic that a law must be perfectly written so there is no wiggle room and 100% enforceable and enforced we would not have any laws on the books…no stop signs or speeding laws, no prohibitions aginst public smoking, no laws against littering, obviously no noise ordinances…the list could go on forever.
Just because a minority of residents might disobey any law is hardy a reason to not enact reasonable laws nor attempt to enforce them.
“we can expect Davisites to behave similarly because we’re hardly a hotbed of civil disobediance here.”
If you don’t “behave” and have a fire in your fireplace on a cold day and you could become a “civil disobediant”.
Now all of you fall in line and do what you’re told.
I can see it now, the anti-burners on rooftops with their binoculars looking for smoke with their cell phones cocked and ready on 911 speed dial.
Maybe we’ll call the pc smoke police Pryor’s Posse.
“Just because a minority of residents might disobey any law is hardy a reason to not enact reasonable laws nor attempt to enforce them.” Reasonable to you, perhaps, Mr. Pryor, not to me. You readily admit that the ordinance might be enforced under conditions that factually would be acceptable for burning. You fail to address the technical issues raised regarding the infrared viewer and the training needed by officers to use the device. You cast aspersions on the veracity and objectivity of Dr. Cahill, whose reputation and qualifications are sterling. What exactly are your qualifications? What business do you have that might be affected financially by such an ordinance? Davis may not be hotbed of civil disobedience, but Davisites are more politically engaged than most communities, so put your proposal before the electorate and see where the chips fall.
“… it appears someone could be found in violation of the ordinance for burning wood during a prohibition period that is established based on forecasts of wind and PM2.5 when in fact the time of the cited violation the actual wind and PM2.5 would permit burning of wood…”
Then presumably, he or she could contest the citation. Daily weather data is available here:
[url]http://ipm.ucdavis.edu/calludt.cgi/WXSTATIONDATA?MAP=&STN=DAVIS.A[/url]
It would be pretty easy to show what the wind speed was, more or less, on the day in question.
[quote]alan: “All their letters of support are included in the Recommendation should you care to take the time to read it before taking such a strident attitude.” I’d like to read your commission’s report, but am away for awhile. Isn’t it online somewhere? Does it include Dr. Cahill’s analysis and the city staff recommendations, or are those posted elsewhere? Please advise.[/quote]
If it ever is considered for enactment it should be put up to a vote by the citizens of Davis.
Alan and/or David:
Third request. Please respond.–[quote]”All their letters of support are included in the Recommendation should you care to take the time to read it before taking such a strident attitude.”
I’d like to read your commission’s report, but am away for awhile. Isn’t it online somewhere? Does it include Dr. Cahill’s analysis and the city staff recommendations, or are those posted elsewhere? Please advise.[/quote]
If someone on the commission will email the report and any other supporting documents to me, I’ll host it on a server with a link.
Here’s how enforcement is supposed to work: A person suffering from a neighbor’s fireplace smoke may call the police, like a person bothered by a neighbor’s excess noise. If a police officer has nothing more urgent to deal, s/he takes these steps. (1) Check a database to see what kind of wood burning permit exists or doesn’t for the house address in question. (2) Check the website or phone recording saying which types of wood burning is allowed that day (anyone, EPA-approved burners, ultra-efficient burners, or -rarely- no one). (3) If the address has no permit for burning under that day’s conditions, knock on the door, verify there’s a fire, and have it put out. Give a warning or a citation. (3′) The police officer can check the infrared reader to see if it shows heat above the chimney before bothering to knock on the door. No heat = no fire.
A tweaks we didn’t think of but which could be added:
Current wind conditions per the web site Don Shor listed could grant someone the right to burn despite predictions.
I’ll try to remember to give Don Shor the ordinance tonight when I get home from work.