by Alan Pryor –
by Alan Pryor – Part I –
Two very different philosophies were shown and two very different regulatory actions toward restricting wood burning were taken by two otherwise very similar college towns in 2009 in Davis and Chico as exemplified by the following quotes.
“I am really interested by this idea that Dr. Cahill could use Davis as a laboratory. I think this would make a tremendous contribution to mankind…This is the type of environmental leadership we are known for…I know this is frustrating to people who have health issues who want a ban right now but it is a sacrifice that might be able to help people later.”
– Sue Greenwald, Davis City Council Member, July, 2009 before the Council unanimously voted to NOT implement any mandatory wood burning restrictions.
“We were asked to get in touch with reality. The reality is people are dying and smoke is contributing to their deaths…. We were asked to consider liberty. I don’t know if there would be anything more deterrent of someone’s liberty than if they were dying.”
– Andy Holcombe, Chico City Council member after voting in favor of mandatory wood burning restrictions in Chico, January, 2009
The Wood Burning Problem in Davis and Summary of the latest City Council Response to Date
There are currently absolutely no wood burning regulations in Davis. Otherwise, about 90 % of the population in from Bakersfield to Chico and including the entire Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Greater Sacramento regions have some type of mandatory wood burning restrictions when forecast weather conditions are very mild and wood smoke can unsafely accumulate. Currently, the restrictions range from about 20 – 45% of the 120 day winter wood burning season. Every major Air Quality Management District (AQMD) in Northern California (including the local Yolo-Solano AQMD) also has a Model Wood Burning Ordinance in which they suggest additional measures that should be taken by local jurisdictions. Every one of these Model Wood Burning Ordinances has a provision recommending the phase-out of all non EPA-Approved wood stoves and open hearth fireplaces.
Overwhelming medical evidence from reputable and world renowned health experts and organizations has indisputably and conclusively shown that wood smoke exposure increases the risk of premature death in seniors, it exacerbates preexisting respiratory impairments and can induce asthma attacks and respiratory arrest, and it retards the development of lungs in young children…and that is just the short list. It has also been demonstrated to have even more mutagenic activity than either cigarette smoke or automobile exhaust.
Numerous Davis residents have testified they have either been sickened by their neighbors’ wood smoke, had to resort to taping their doors and windows shut to prevent smoke incursions into the homes, and/or otherwise cannot walk in their own neighborhoods at night because of the stench of wood smoke and the adverse effects it has on them. And the Council has testified that they believed these citizens.
The American Lung Association and Breathe California have written to and appeared before the Davis Council on numerous occasions and recommended the City adopt the proposed Wood Burning Ordinance developed by the City’s Natural Resources Commission (NRC). The methodology used to develop the NRC-proposed ordinance has also been reviewed by prominent atmospheric scientists and they have written to the Council informing them that they believe it is being properly and prudently applied and should help to reduce overexposure by Davis residents to wood smoke.
Yet amazingly, in our supposed green and environmentally friendly community, Davis still has absolutely no wood burning restrictions at all!
Another opportunity to protect its citizens was lost was lost two weeks ago on July 21, 2009 when our City Council yet again failed to implement any mandatory wood burning restrictions whatsoever despite working on the problem for over 5 years. Instead, Council opted to implement voluntary restrictions of between 1 and 5 days per year while continuing to authorize Dr. Cahill and Staff to perform yet another year of “study” before looking at the problem again. This newly authorized study is a far more simple and far less intensive “do-over” version of the functionally failed attempts by Dr. Cahill and Staff last winter. That study was primarily designed to comprehensively and quantitatively measure wood smoke levels transectionally across Davis and investigate and measure wood smoke concentrations at sites reported to be problems by citizen complaints. Neither objective was completed.
In recognition of the obvious equipment and personal shortcomings in completing last years’ anticipated study, this next winter Staff will instead simply “record” complaints from the public without any actual measurements at all of wood smoke across the City! Dr. Cahill will then attempt to statistically correlate the complaints with atmospheric then prevalent weather conditions and hopefully derive meteorological thresholds below which people don’t complain. While a reasonable idea in concept, this does require huge numbers of complainants in order to get statistically significant and informed results. Unfortunately, Staff has very poor record at public outreach on this issue and the likelihood is that citizens will generally not be sufficiently incentivized to complain if there is absolutely no enforcement benefit derived from their complaints. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that a sufficiently large number of complaints will be generated by the proposed meager 1-4 days per year of voluntary restrictions to really further our understanding the human effect of the levels of wood smoke in Davis. nor indicate appropriate control strategies. In addition to protecting against what Dr. Cahill referred to as “fumigation” due to the nearest neighbor impact of serial burners, Dr. Cahill also clearly noted he recommended a mandatory wood burning restrictive program to stimulate the minimally necessary large number of complaints in order to properly perform the correlation studies he envisions.
That is beside the point, though, For the immediately foreseeable future anybody in Davis will still be able to burn whatever type of wood they want in any type of fireplace or wood stove they want and whenever they want without any recourse available to neighbors afflicted by wood burner. Good for Burners…Bad for Breathers.
What our Council Members Told Us in 2008
Back in January of 2008, the City Council directed the NRC to investigate the problem of wood smoke in Davis. In July of 2008, a little over one year ago, the Council heard the first recommendation of the NRC to eventually phase-out all wood burning in Davis. This recommendation was unanimously accepted by the Council and they directed the NRC to draft such an ordinance for their consideration.
That fact that one year later there are still not any restrictive wood burning regulations in Davis is a repudiation of the Council member’s own words. At that July, 2008 Council meeting, every single Davis Council member unambiguously acknowledged the increased health risks posed by wood smoke exposure and the need to act quickly and responsibly to enact proper restrictions.
“On a winter night, I know for certain that when I go outside and there’s no wind, it really depends on a 5-10 mph wind that will blow the smoke away so you don’t have that lingering smell, it’s a hazard. It is quite a hazard.”
– Steve Souza.
“Being the representative liaison to the NRC, I have heard their arguments and listened to their discussions and have read and reread their proposed policy. It is sound. I think they looked at the whole plethora of issues. They looked at considerations we need to take into account. They looked at enforcement. They looked at voluntary curtailment. They looked at permitting. They looked at every facet of the proposed ordinance. I would suggest that there are probably some things we might want added or taken out but, for me, I am completely happy with what they have proposed…This is something that is in all of our interests in the long run…The policy direction that the NRC presented is well grounded”
– Steve Souza
“I just wanted to point out to people that we are not doing this as part of our greenhouse gas reduction program. The purpose of this is for air quality in terms of what people are comfortable breathing.”
– Sue Greenwald.
“This item is of paramount importance because it is not just an environmental issue it is a public health issue…and I think it is incumbent upon us to do all we can when we hear the testimony and we understand what the science is on the effects of particulate matter on folks with respiratory ailments. I think if we don’t do something, if we don’t impose some kind of requirements then I think we are remiss in our duties.”
– Lamar Heystek
“This is an imminent health issue when people cannot breathe because of the practices of others. I personally favor, after hearing all the testimony and reading all of the literature that has been provided to us, that we propose some kind of ban and I would propose an immediate ban. There was a compromise proposed by Yolo Clean Air that there be no immediate phase-out of EPA stoves if we had the 5 mph wind speed provisions. But I do think we have to do something immediately about open hearth fireplaces. It is a public health issue. I think if we don’t do something immediately about it and people can’t breathe then I think we are not doing our jobs. Voluntary pleas get voluntary compliance. And peoples’ breathing is not voluntary. It is a requirement of life and if we do not provide people with the basic appurtances of life then we are not doing our jobs.”
– Lamar Heystek.
“When the Air Board approved the voluntary No-Burn program 4 years ago, I was concerned that it did not go far enough with restrictions…It seems like staff is proposing to work with the Air Board and it looks to me like we are going back in a way so I think we need to do something and be more concrete.”
– Ruth Asmundson
“We have to do something. I appreciate the comments people have made…My heart would tell me, let’s ban this…I agree with Ruth that the sideways stuff of spending another year without a direction; I am not excited by that. It has already taken us 3 years to get to this point.”
The strongest challenge to the imposition of mandatory restrictions at that July, 2008 Council meeting had been submitted by Dr. Tom Cahill, a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at UC Davis (and a Davis resident and acknowledged wood burner). Dr. Cahill had previously written a letter to the Council followed by an Op-Ed in the Davis Enterprise in which he claimed that wood smoke was possibly both less harmful than previously thought and that there was surprisingly little wood smoke in Davis. Thus, according to Dr. Cahill, there was not any need for any restrictions on wood burning.
However, these same points were raised with Matt Ehrhardt, Executive Director of the Yolo Air AQMD at that Council meeting. He not only confirmed that wood smoke particulate matter constitutes the highest percentage of particulate matter in Davis air in the winter but that wood smoke is indeed quite harmful. “Wood smoke is a concern and definitely a health hazard. All the studies clearly show that….It contains a lot of fines [particulate matter] and certainly other chemicals and toxins that make it particularly hazardous.”
As a result of these and other comments and citizen testimony in July, 2008, the Council unanimously directed that the NRC construct a draft ordinance resulting in an eventual ban on wood burning in Davis and return it to them for eventual approval.
What Happened from July, 2008 Through January 2009
Following the Council’s directive, the NRC began a series of public hearings during which both opponents and supporters of wood burning restrictions presented their cases. Eventually the matter went back before the Council in January of 2009 with the recommendation by the NRC that wood burning be banned in non EPA-approved devices and open hearths. Burning in EPA –approved devices was proposed to be allowed providing forecasted wind speed were in excess of 5 mph to properly disperse the wood smoke and forecasted regional particulate matter concentrations were in excess of 25 ug/m3.
By this time, however, the uproar over the wood burning issue reached fever pitch. The Council had received over 120 emails from citizens equally divided over the issue. They had also received a variety of communications from health organizations, atmospheric and medical researchers and physicians, and local business interests in Davis categorized as follows:
(1) Co-author of Wood Smoke Health Effects: A Review (Inhalation Toxicology, vol. 19, pp. 67-106, 2007) and Air Pollution and Emergency Room Visits for Asthma in Santa Clara County (Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 105, pp. 216-222, 1997)
It is clear that the business community was overwhelmingly opposed to any wood burning restrictions in Davis in order to protect their economic interests. It is also obvious that the medical and health communities and the majority of atmospheric scientists (sans Tom Cahill) were overwhelmingly in support of increased restrictions to protect citizen health.
The matter culminated in another Council meeting this most recent January. In rejecting the NRC recommendations at this meeting, one of the deciding factors clearly was an offer from Dr. Tom Cahill to collect “real science” data about the levels of wood smoke in Davis during the then current 2008-2009 wood burning season to lend additional understanding to the problem. As stated by Dr. Cahill, “I would like Davis to do the work so carefully that when we come through, together with the YS AQMD, we can come up with an ordinance that everybody can support…So let’s do it right and let’s do it carefully.” The Council then deferred making any decision on the issue until Dr. Cahill reported back on his findings while Staff simultaneously implemented an educational outreach program with the Yolo Solano AQMD.
And then things got really interesting!
See Part II in a future Vanguard
Alan Pryor you have been at the forefront of this issue for quite some time and I applaud you. When my friends and I think of this issue the same thought comes to mind that you expressed, “Yet amazingly, in our supposed green and environmentally friendly community, Davis still has absolutely no wood burning restrictions at all!”
Some of us really do want a more environmentally friendly Davis. Please let us know what we can do to put pressure on this non-responsive city council to do something about the air quality in Davis.
The proposed ordinance was unenforceable.
i don’t think any reasonable person has a problem with restrictions on burning or being expected to comply with directions to burn only under certain weather conditions and not under others. I think anyone would have a problem with an outright ban on open hearth burning at any time. This seems to work for other cities. I don’t understand why Davis is having such a problem coming up with a criteria
Why not adopt Sacramento’s wood-burning ordinance, as Don Shor has suggested. It makes the most sense to me…
Alan, thank you for your comments to the CC last week during general public comment. I agree with the NRC recommendations.
It is time for Mr. Pryor to give it a rest. At least this time he didn’t tell us how many millions of cigarettes a pellet stove equals, but still, he insists on framing the discussion in terms of the asthmatics vs. the polluters. For anyone who has attended the various hearings on wood smoke, the problem seems to be limited to a few areas of downtown where old homes with open hearth fireplaces do produce significant amounts of smoke, especially if they are used often but not used correctly. Unfortunately, Mr. Pryor’s solution to this very limited problem is to ban pellet stoves in north Davis, Dura flame logs in Wild Horse, and EPA Certified stoves in South Davis—none of which will make a whit of difference to the amount of smoke downtown! “Where there is smoke, there is fire,” and the converse is also probably true, “Where there is fire, there is smoke.” But where there is fire, there can an insignificant amount of smoke, or there can be a tremendous amount of noxious smoke. Unfortunately Mr. Pryor seems to be unable to grasp the difference. His solution is simply to ban ALL burning of wood or wood products, for even those individuals who have gone to significant expense to enjoy fires in their homes in the most efficient, environmentally clean way possible.
Mr. Pryor is not the only resident of Davis who cherishes clean air; the Yolo Solano Air Quality District (YSAQD) and the City of Sacramento also value clean air. These entities realize that even more polluting then open hearth fireplaces are old wood burning stoves that do not adhere to EPA standards. In recognition of this fact, both have offered rebates to those residents who are willing to get rid of their old stoves and replace them with clean-burning ones. Unfortunately, last year when the rebate was being offered in Davis, the Davis Natural Resources Commission (NRC) effectively undermined it by warning residents that they planned to ban all wood burning in a few years. Few if anyone who was aware of this proposed ban shelled out the several thousand dollars it takes to buy a good quality EPA stove. But neither did they get rid of the old ones; they will be producing significant amounts of smoke this winter. The NRC under Pr. Pryor’s guidance took an “all or nothing” approach to the problem, and in the end got nothing. A reasoned approach to work with the YSAQD instead of working against it would have helped to clean the air for all of us, but the NRC rejected it.
A number of us who enjoy a cozy fire on a cold winter’s night AND clean air have made suggestions to the NRC and members of the city council to work together to improve air quality downtown and in general. One proposal is to require that on the change of ownership, open hearth fireplaces (and non-EPA compliant stoves) be retrofitted with EPA approved burning devices or rendered inoperable. This would not solve the problem immediately, but it would begin to phase it out. Unfortunately, there seems to be no interest in this proposal; again, it seems that only an “all or nothing” approach is acceptable.
As I have stated before, I am aware that my point of view is a minority on this blog, but I find it unfortunate that this debate continues to be framed in absolutes: good guys vs. bad guys, winners vs. losers. I think that Mr. Pryor’s vision of cleaner air would more likely come to fruition if he were willing to compromise and work with the other side rather than being dedicated to “winning.” Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case, and in the meantime, all of us are the losers.
On a final note, find it sad that Mr. Pryor and his followers are so concerned about even minute amounts of wood smoke in the air, but are not at all concerned about the amount of carbon that is pumped into the atmosphere by burning sequestered fuels like natural gas instead of renewable fuels like wood, but that is for another day.
At the very least, Davis needs to do what Don Shor suggested–adopt Sacramento’s restrictions on wood burning. The NRC recommendations would be even better, but at least adopting the Sacramento standards would improve life for folks with lung problems and decrease the risk of heart attack for folks with heart issues. I am tired of dreading foggy Thanksgivings and Christmases with wood smoke trapped near the ground and me trapped inside, trying not to breath the products of someone’s thoughtless holiday indulgence.
George,
It’s NOT “just a few areas in downtown”. Anytime during a winter inversion, as I walk around my neighborhood in west Davis (west of 113) it becomes extremely hard for me to breathe as I pass through one contrail or plume after another. Imagine gasping for air and not being able to get it. I do not suffer from asthma, but can only imagine how incredibly worse it must be for those who do. Your attack on Mr. Pryor shows your anger. You fervently wish to hold on to your psychological comforts and the ambiance of an open fire. But I suggest that when you choose to live as close to one another as we do in a modern city, that certain “freedoms” or autonomous actions must be surrendered for the common good. If you are constitutionally unable or unwilling to make the necessary accomodation… well, there is always Idaho or Montana.
This seems like an exaggeration. Why would you continue to “walk through one contrail or plume after another” while at the same time finding it “extremely hard for me to breathe” and “gasping for air and not being able to get it” and this happens “anytime.” I just don’t believe you.
No exaggeration here, Ryan. Try it yourself. Walk around Village Homes or West Manor any winter inversion day and generally you will encounter at least one plume of smoke per block, some blocks three or four, and the plume will be, depending on dispersion factors, anywhere from 5 yards to 20 yards wide (as measured on the sidewalk) with a inversely-corresponding density factor. The smoke is noxious to anyone and harmful to the health of everyone. Public health applies to everyone. This, I suspect, is simply a matter of more of the same from the party of “No!”. The ‘publicans fear change more than anything and perceive *any* change as a direct threat to “their way of life”, even when it’s based on solid consensus scientific evidence — witness climate change, carbon caps, renewable energy, wildlife preservation. To them there is no “common-wealth” only private wealth, no “common good” only government intervention and loss of freedom. The last administration was very good at “denial”, it seems on this issue here in the People’s Republic of Davis we have our own Deny-ers.
“Walk around Village Homes or West Manor any winter inversion day and generally you will encounter at least one plume of smoke per block….”
Those are the types of days on which Sacramento Air Quality District would very likely call a No Burn day, and there aren’t that many of them. As anyone who has lived here for long can attest, they mostly occur from mid-December to early January.
I don’t question the fact that people have fires. The exaggeration is the description of your response to them – “walk through one contrail or plume after another” while at the same time finding it “extremely hard for me to breathe” and “gasping for air and not being able to get it” and this happens “anytime there is a winter inversion day.” I believe you are exaggerating this to try to make a point. I don’t believe that on every winter inversion day you go out for a walk and, grasping for air, continue your walk around the neighborhood all the while struggling to breath.
Don’t know why you’re picking a nit. But I will elaborate. I only struggle to breathe while in a plume (by the way sometimes you can see them, sometimes you can’t) and afterward for a few more breaths until the lung clears out. Periodic oxygen deprivation is still quite unpleasant. Any yes, my dog requires exercise to remain healthy and gets his two walks a day regardless of the weather. Satisfied, Ryan?
To: Don Shor re: “Those are the types of days on which Sacramento Air Quality District would very likely call a No Burn day, and there aren’t that many of them. As anyone who has lived here for long can attest, they mostly occur from mid-December to early January.
I just read in the Sac Bee where their AQMD is considering imposing much more stricter No-Burn day criteria that will up the Number of No-Burn days to 40 or more per year. That is over half the days in December and January. Sounds like the screws are being tightened. Davis should jst get on board and quit fighting this!
“Public health applies to everyone. This, I suspect, is simply a matter of more of the same from the party of “No!”. The ‘publicans fear change more than anything and perceive *any* change as a direct threat to “their way of life”, even when it’s based on solid consensus scientific evidence — witness climate change, carbon caps, renewable energy, wildlife preservation.”
Here we go again, now this is a Republican vs Democrats issue, with the Dems on the right side of things, and “Repugs” on the wrong side. I am a Republican, and believe adopting Sacramento’s standards is the most sensible approach.
“I just read in the Sac Bee where their AQMD is considering imposing much more stricter No-Burn day criteria that will up the Number of No-Burn days to 40 or more per year. That is over half the days in December and January. Sounds like the screws are being tightened. Davis should jst get on board and quit fighting this!”
All the more reason to adopt Sacramento’s standards, which are already tried and true.
“Anytime during a winter inversion, as I walk around my neighborhood in west Davis (west of 113) it becomes extremely hard for me to breathe as I pass through one contrail or plume after another. Imagine gasping for air and not being able to get it.”
I live right next to Village Homes, and never noticed the smoke, and I have lived here since 1987. However, if there are asmathatics troubled by wood smoke, then Sacto’s ordinance should do just fine.
Alvin – I’m not picking at a nit. It was just that your story was unbelievable. It is easy to ask people who live in the same community if they notice smoke when they go for walks in the winter. What you initially described was just not accurate. The second description is a bit more accurate. You go for walks in the winter and can detect the smell of smoke and you don’t like it and have a negative reaction to it. This doesn’t keep you from your twice daily walks with your dog, but it is an annoyance all the same. You don’t like the fact that you are breathing air that smells like smoke from home fires periodically on your walks.
Alvin_Public, add the west Davis Evergreen 4, the neighborhood just across Hampton from Arroyo Park, to your list of neighborhoods with a wood smoke problem. We have at least one fireplace enthusiast who burns fall, winter and spring. I have never been able to see which chimney the smoke is coming from, but it certainly curtails my outdoor activities.
thanks for writing this great article I’ve always wanted to write myself. don’t forget the dirty pesticides and pollutants the right wing republican redneck farmers are dumping into our groundwater. pollutants pollutants galore, returned to our wells as payment for the water sucked dry by archaic stone age flood irrigation. and all for what? a season of fucking tomatoes?
truth about Davis is that low income housing is not affordable or low income at all. it’s run by gangsters and criminals. mostly mexican nationals. put them in charge of running hells kitchen and the slum lords get to call themselves “non discriminatory”
truth about davis, it’s dirty, polluted, outrageously over priced and expensive and not nearly worth the price you pay to live here. fuck davis and the dirty water, fuck davis and the scared liberals, too scared to stand up against gangsters and criminals, fuck davis and the underground railroad, fuck davis and the slum lords, fuck davis and the cockroaches that rain supreme all over the streets late at night, fuck davis and the snooty yuppies, fuck davis and the rotting sewar lines that go unfixed for years and years by greedy negligent greedy slumlords, fuck davis and ‘low income housing’ that’s run by low income people who discriminate left right and center. fuck davis. i’m out of here. good bye dirty little town. it was once a perfect green hippy sanctuary. now it’s overrun by greedy developers, corrupt government officials, greedy unions, gangs, and last but not least, gangs……davis is not as green as you think. off to greener pastures. …a house just sold on a street for 750,000 dollars. so tell me mr. govt. where’s all the tax money going?