In 1960, Gwinnett County had a population of 42,000. Today, our population has swelled to more tom 500,000. More than ever, I understand and agree that standards are necessary to preserve air quality to protect the public health. I'm especially sympathetic to others who are affected by the region's air quality. While I serve as Chairman of Gwinnett County's Board of Commissioners, my bigger role is that of husband, father and grandfather. Sadly, my granddaughter suffers from upper respiratory problems, and that causes my wife and I a great deal of concern.
On behalf of the residents in Gwinnett County, including my wife, children and other family members, I want to commend you and earlier members of Congress who decided to tackle the problem. Because of you, air quality is better today that it was 25 or 30 years ago.
As I mentioned earlier, I also serve as Chairman on the Atlanta Regional Commission. In that capacity, I have been very involved with Atlanta's efforts to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. I can assure you that both the ARC and Georgia State agencies have been working diligently to ensure compliance in the region.
As we work to address this matter, let's remember that air quality is a very complicated issue, involving a number of interconnected sources. My discussion today will cover three major areas: 1) coordination and consistency at the Federal level, 2) complexity of Clean Air issues and 3) consequences of regulation.
First, let's talk about coordination and consistency. I am very comfortable with Congress's intent on the Clean Air issue. Somtimes, though, your intent may be blurred by how Federal agencies implement your legislation. It's not unusual for two Federal agencies to take different approaches to an issue that can leave a local government hung between two conflicting sets of regulations. Specifically related to the Clean Air Act, we request that Congress emphasize a coordinated approach that balances all the many factors that should be considered, including public health, highway safety, mobility, economic impacts, cost and the will of the American people.
Such coordination can help reduce certainty about future requirements, which is one of the most difficult things for local governments to handle. In Gwinnett and the rest of the Atlanta region, we have been thrown into chaos by a combination of decisions at our level and the Federal level and legal challenges to those decisions.
Federal funding for a number of previously approved projects has been withdrawn. The State of Georgia and local governments like mine are faced with the prospect of worsening congestion and increased danger of travel while we attempt to meet the revised guidance from the Federal level. You can imagine our frustration! While we are told repeatedly that we must plan for the long-term, our plans have to be based on Federal requirements that can change rapidly.
I understand that legislation has been proposed to address the Court decision regarding EPA's rule dealing with "grandfathered" projects. I urge that Senate Bill 1053 be passed for the good of areas all across the U.S.
The second point for discussion is the complexity of the issue. All of you know that this is a complicated, interconnected problem. It is easy to create unintended results. For example, there is a lot of discussion about the evils of "sprawl" development and its contribution to air pollution through encouraging auto-dependent travel. Yet dealing with the extra requirements brought on by designation as an area with air quality problems can drive businesses and people to move farther out.
My small business, a cabinet shop, is a point-source for certain pollutants because we use glues and stains. We were sent 30 to 40 pages of papers to file about the number of gallons we use. If we were three miles to the north, we would be in a county that is outside the non-conforming Atlanta area, and we would not have to file these documents. Some businesses will supply choose at some point to move rather than deal with the extra regulations. As companies move further, so will people, resulting in more and more sprawl of development.
Third, I want to touch on the consequences of regulation. As noted earlier, Federal funding for certain transportation projects in the Atlanta area has been withdrawn. This leaves many local governments, including Gwinnett, with gaps in the transportation network, for example, two-lane road sections connecting four-lane sections.
Delaying such projects puts the public at risk. Not only is there increased likelihood of vehicle accidents but the response time of emergency vehicles climbs. Greater congestion also leads to exactly what we're trying to prevent--emission of more pollutants!
We must also consider the public's will. Gwinnett County voters approved a one-cent special purpose local option sales tax for the purpose of improving the transportation infrastructure. It's tough to explain why we cannot utilize tax dollars as the public wishes.
Another consequence is the potential effect on the nation's economy. At some point, the uncertainly of future transportation improvements, the impacts of increased congestion on the public and the burden of additional legislation will cause the business activity of Atlanta to shift and slow. The same will be true for any area in the U.S. facing non-conformity under Clean Air standards.
Vital to economic development is the ability for industry to get its product to market. If road projects are discontinued, that will virtually shut down Atlanta's transportation network. Industries all over the Southeast rely on our interstate and rail systems and the close proximity to Hartsfield International Airport. If that network is crippled because of delayed or cancelled road projects, it could conceivably paralyze the economy for the southeast region. Of equal concern is the perception of businesses considering relocations or expansions. Executives know that it is less expensive for a business to locate in an attainment area than a non-attainment area.
I'm not suggesting that we slow efforts to improve air quality, but that we carefully consider the economic impacts. My business background taught me that I have to have enough money to pay the bills. My time as an elected official has shown me that it takes money to run an effective govemment, and a healthy economy lets us accomplish important projects that we could not otherwise do. This applies at all levels of government, as you all know better than I do.
In summary, I agree that regulations are necessary to address air quality. I commend the committee and subcommittee members for addressing a complex and unpopular issue. Thank you for your time today and for allowing me to voice my thoughts and suggestions.