It took decades of blown deadlines, haggling and miscalculation for the Valley to land at the doorstep of the nation's worst smog category – now known to the public as "extreme."

DIRTY-AIR DETECTOR: Scott Scheller, technician with the California Air Resources Board, shows off equipment that measures winter pollutants and the chemical composition of air, on the roof of the state's monitoring station in Fresno. (Mark Crosse / The Fresno Bee)

But moving into "extreme," which would give the Valley a five-year reprieve on its 2005 smog cleanup deadline, also follows a long-established pattern of cat-and-mouse games between federal, state and Valley officials.

The Valley's last 30 years are littered with accounts of the federal government issuing proposals, edicts and threats to clean up the air, only to accept delays and compromise after meeting resistance. Industries, local elected officials and even state regulators have had a hand in the process.

"When have we ever met a cleanup deadline or had healthy air here?" asks Sierra Club member Kevin Hall of Fresno. "Never."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's history of backing down began in the early 1970s when the agency suggested limiting gasoline sales and cutting back downtown parking 20% in the Valley to encourage mass transit alternatives. The idea was quickly snuffed.

In 1978, federal authorities threatened to cut off $60 million in federal money for Fresno County if the county didn't achieve health standards for ozone pollution in 1982. The county didn't reach the standard, but the EPA never carried out the threat.

Click to view larger image from the interactive gallery.

County officials told the feds at the time that the ozone standard couldn't be reached by 1982. So an extension to 1987 was granted, as long as the county came up with a vehicle inspection program.

Vehicle inspection came to the Valley and Fresno County, but compliance with federal air standards didn't. The federal government set new standards and deadlines in the 1990 update of the Clean Air Act – and the Valley would later miss the major targets.

And so it has gone. EPA and backpedaling became almost synonymous.

Environmentalists say the Valley air district also has buckled in the face of political flak, especially from industries.

In the early 1990s, the district backed away from a controversial proposal for mandatory no-burn days for home fireplaces during bad-air episodes in winter. Similarly, after builders complained, the district scuttled an idea to charge developer fees for each ton of smog created by people driving from new subdivisions.

In 1993, the local air district bowed to opposition and decided against forcing major Valley businesses to promote traffic-reducing measures such as car pooling and use of mass transit.

"Some people showed up and objected, so [the air district board] said, 'OK, we won't do it,' " Sierra Club official George Whitmore said at the time. "That, to me, is an example of a governmental breakdown."

The state has played a role in the delay as well. The state Air Resources Board was told in the early 1990s that estimates of vehicle pollution emissions probably were coming up short in California, but the board took no action for years.

The result: Valley regulators for years couldn't know that they needed even more reductions to meet air standards.

Today, local air officials list the 1990 estimate for one pollutant, oxides of nitrogen, as being almost 50% higher than the estimate that was published in 1990. In explanation, they call it "backcasting."

Such emission estimates are constantly changing as research develops better information. But in this case, the state simply decided the research wasn't conclusive enough.

The issue arose in the late 1980s when experts at several institutions tested the state's estimates by setting up pollution monitors at the entrances and exits of highway tunnels and measuring emissions. These were called "tunnel studies."

When they compared their findings with the state's estimates, their readings were considerably higher.

PAPERWORK: Josette Merced Bello looks at a "strip chart" that measures pollutants at the air monitoring station in Clovis. (Mark Crosse / The Fresno Bee)

Though state officials initially dismissed the tunnel studies as using "new and unproved" methods, they repeatedly revised their estimates in the following years, each time coming closer to the results of the tunnel studies.

But the state plays a much broader role in air quality than simply providing emissions estimates. California has tough air laws and standards, but it generally does not have firm consequences for missing the mark.

The EPA has the teeth – in the form of financial sanctions on areas out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. Historically, the sanctions have been avoided, though the EPA is enforcing more and more sanctions around the country as environmentalists push lawsuits and the letter of the law.

Federal financial sanctions anger some San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District board members, who complain the federal government has control over 60% of the problem – gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

The EPA sets standards for engines and fuel, while the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District handles so-called "stationary" sources, such as refineries, power plants and businesses. Valley air officials say that even if half the industries were shut down, the Valley would not achieve the federal standard.

Yet the air board and the Valley will have to pay the price in increased fees and, perhaps, the loss of federal road-building money if the air doesn't get cleaner.

"It's not fair," says Valley air board member Jack Sieglock, a San Joaquin County supervisor.

Federal officials try to satisfy as many local concerns as possible without sanctions, EPA officials say. But, at some point, the federal Clean Air Act begins a "sanctions clock" when deadlines are missed. Environmentalists file lawsuits based on sections of the Clean Air Act.

"The sanctions are a matter of law, not discretion," says EPA spokeswoman Lisa Fasano.

Eighteen months after the clock starts, businesses will pay higher fees to expand or to locate in the area. Twenty-four months after the clock starts, the federal government will hold up funding for road projects to slow down growth.

In the Valley, about $2.2 billion in projects would be jeopardized by a missed smog deadline.

Along with the road money freeze, federal officials are obligated simultaneously to start their own plan to clean the air. In Los Angeles 12 years ago, a Draconian federal plan was proposed to include gasoline rationing and no-drive days.

EPA never enforced the plan. After four years of battling and acrimony, the agency softened its stand, matching many of the ideas established by anxious state and local officials in the Los Angeles area, the only place in the country designated as being in "extreme noncompliance with the federal ozone standard."

Which brings us back to the Valley's "extreme" situation.

A similar, L.A.-like battle probably will begin in the Valley by mid-2004 if the local district cannot meet the 2005 cleanup deadline for the current designation of "severe" noncompliance with the standard. By most accounts, the Valley has little chance of reaching it.

Why? Major reductions in car and truck emissions – the ones the Valley district has no control over – are coming after 2005. They would represent more than 30% of the reductions the Valley needs.

The vehicle changes won't happen soon enough because they are geared to meet the 2010 cleanup deadline for the Los Angeles area. If the Valley joins the extreme category with Los Angeles, it also will get the 2010 deadline.

The Valley would again sidestep onerous sanctions.

David Crow, the Valley's air pollution control officer, says the air cleanup will proceed at top speed whether the district is classified as severe or extreme. But he says the 2010 deadline gives the Valley a fighting chance.

Many businesses and farmers agree.

On the other side, environmentalists see another in a long line of delays. The Valley's largest city, Fresno, sided with environmentalists in June. The Fresno City Council wants to keep the 2005 deadline and the sense of urgency.

Said council President Henry Perea: "We have to hold our own feet to the fire."