The board agreed by consensus to seek what Supervisor Denise Rushing called “common sense trade offs” that would give residents and landowners options for dealing with brush before the height of the summer season.
The matter had been brought to the board's attention by Kelseyville resident Mike Fowler, who last month wrote a letter complaining about the May 1 start date despite a much later rainy season (see the letter here: Fowler: Burn season should have been extended).
Supervisor Rob Brown, who had the matter agendized, said “it looks a little ridiculous on our part” to have the ban begin on a day when it's raining, which is what happened this year.
He suggested the county needs to explain to the public each year the reason for the ban's implementation, and look for options when it's a rainier year.
At the end of the summer season the ban is lifted based on conditions, but it begins on the set May 1 date, Brown said.
“It rained for a full month after the burn ban was in effect” this year, he said.
Supervisor Jeff Smith suggested that, on the last Tuesday of each April, the board should discuss the ban before it goes into effect.
“I'm open to anything,” Brown said.
Pollution Control Officer Doug Gearhart said local air quality rules are meant to allow local air districts to deal with sources of local air pollution.
He said the county needs to maintain federal and state air standards. “This is the issue a lot of people don't understand, air quality standards are not just targets,” but based on scientific data, Gearhart said. He also noted during the meeting that the standards are health-based.
This summer, air districts are looking at a significant reduction in the ozone standard, he said.
Gearhart pointed to California Breathing's asthma profile for Lake County, last updated in July 2008. That report showed that 22.7 percent of adults, ages 18 through 64, have asthma, as compared to 13 percent statewide. Approximately 12,000 children and adults countywide have asthma, the report showed.
As for waiving a rule like the burn ban, Gearhart noted, “It's a long process. It requires public input, it requires state review.” It's also important to prevent backsliding on Clean Air Act provisions, and the county likely will have to tighten its provisions elsewhere if they want to allow the burn ban rule change, Gearhart said.
He said the May 1 burn ban start had added flexibility in other parts of the burn program.
In making any changes to the burn ban, Gearhart said the county would have to look at both fire safety and air quality issues. “There is a lot of complexity there,” Gearhart said.
“We need to burn up the regulations,” quipped Supervisor Jim Comstock.
“That would be a violation, too,” Gearhart replied.
Smith wondered if they could put a burn ban into effect in February during rainy years in order to lengthen the burning season into the summer.
Gearhart said the May 1 start date is meant to be simple.
“It's simple but it doesn't make sense,” Brown said.
County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said that the board couldn't change the burn ban start at the Tuesday meeting, but they could set it in motion.
Brown said he didn't want the program to be punitive. “There has to be some reasonable way that we can apply common sense to this.”
He told Gearhart that no one was suggesting throwing out any rules or not following standards. “We want some reasonable, commonsense approaches to some of these regulations that just make government look ridiculous.”
Gearhart noted during the discussion that Lake County is its own standalone air basin.
He said that, besides agricultural burning, there is another process for district rule variances through the district's hearing board. It's not an easy process but it can be done.
Gearhart provided the board with statistics about the last two burn seasons to illustrate their lengths and the amount of rain.
For 2008-09, the burn season was 172 days long with 36 no burn days. There were 68 days with no rain or 93 days with less than 0.01 inches of rain, he said.
In the 2009-10 burn season, Gearhart said there were 194 days long with 12 no burn days. There were 87 days with no rain or 108 days with less than 0.01 inches of rain.
He told the board that the district maintains a list of landscaping and tree chipping services as an alternative to burning.
“What you are looking at it is only affecting residential burning,” he said, adding that there are other alternatives for burns involving agriculture.
Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon, who lives in the “wildland urban interface,” said she wants clear air, but added, “Forest fires ruin clean air like nobody's business.”
On her own four heavily wooded acres she said she's spent six years clearing brush. Big piles of brush can gather and at the end of the season some people will try to burn things that are damp. Burning materials that are too damp also takes place in the middle of winter, which she said creates a smoke nuisance.
She suggested a public awareness campaign would be good to teach people how to report those kinds of burns and the consequences for them. Brandon said that eliminating those nuisance burns in the middle of winter would balance out additions to the season in the spring.
A late April discussion about the ban, which Smith had suggested, wouldn't give people enough advance notice that the ban was going to actually take place, Brandon said.
Rushing suggested the county develop some common sense trade offs that would allow the county to still meet state law while having more flexibility with the ban, which the board agreed to by consensus.
Gearhart said he will try to bring back some suggestions as soon as possible, noting that he and his staff currently have several projects under way.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
