Ozone is a problem that affects all of us, wherever we live. There are numerous laws and international treaties that are designed to reduce the amount of ozone that is introduced into the atmosphere. The purpose of this is to protect our environment and hopefully limit the amount of cancer producing rays that reach the earth and potentially affect many individuals. In fact, we are gradually becoming a warmer universe and it is believed by many that ozone reduction policies are in our best interest in terms of reversing this dangerous trend.

Unfortunately, the federal government has for some unknown reason been reluctant to aggressively pursue ozone related issues. Granted, the federal government has a tremendous amount on its plate. But, this issue appears to be significant and worth federal resources so that wherever we live, we can be more healthy.

It must be regarded as good news that the Environmental Protection Agency, otherwise known as the EPA, announced that it has settled a lawsuit brought by various environmental organizations concerning the EPA's alleged failure to enforce ozone standards which were established in 1997.

Noncompliance in many states has been long apparent, though the government was doing little about it. Now, the EPA appears to be willing to enforce our environmental laws concerning ozone protection.

In this agreement, the EPA will determine which parts of the country do not satisfy the 1997 established ozone standards. This list will be completed by April 2004.

When the EPA identifies areas as not meeting the standards, it will then be up to the individual states to effectively reduce pollution so as to come in compliance. Of course, the primary source of the pollution is the automobile emissions that produce smog as well as various industrial emissions.

The actual effect that ozone has on us is still the subject of scientific debate. Ozone has long been believed to contribute to asthma and other respiratory diseases, and studies recently conducted suggest that ozone levels that many people in this country encounter everyday are high enough to represent significant health effects. Some public health organizations have opined that the more protective standards will prevent many illnesses in this country every year.

The consent decree has a section entitled "EPA obligations." The first obligation provides that by April 15, 2004 the EPA will begin the process of formally designating areas that fail to meet ozone requirements. This process requires publication of the list in an official federal document called the Federal Register.

Interestingly, the decree requires that the EPA "not take any steps" to delay or otherwise interfere with publication" of the list in the Federal Register. We have to wonder why it is that the environmental groups and the other health organizations felt it to be necessary to include this kind of language in a settlement agreement with our government.

The environmental groups Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, The American Lung Association, The Sierra Club, The Clean Air Counsel and other organizations participated in this lawsuit.

The Bush administration has been criticized concerning what has been perceived by many as a lax attitude concerning environmental discharges and contamination from business and industry. The fact that a law as important as this law was not being enforced and that a settlement agreement requiring, among other things, that the government not enter into unfair delay tactics, suggests that the state of environmental regulation at the national level is not as protective as one might hope.

Without question, our national government has more than enough with which it must now contend. However, domestic issues that affect the health and well being of everyone in every community simply cannot be set aside while the government does such an able and competent job in addressing our international problems. Somehow, some way, measures must be taken to insure that the air that we breathe remains suitable for that purpose.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.