GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

78THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONsaid ‘a great deal of missionary work’ lay ahead [in convincing others of the needfor government action to reduce air pollution in Los Angeles], and announcedthat he would begin his with the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce” (123).In 1946 the Los Angeles Times brought in Prof. Raymond Tucker fromWashington University in St. Louis to study and report on the Los Angelesair pollution situation (“‘Times’ Expert Offers Smog Plan” 1947; Brienes1975, chap. 5). Tucker was smoke commissioner and in charge of regulatingindustrial air pollution emissions in St. Louis from 1937 to 1942 (Ainsworth1946). His report analyzing the sources of Los Angeles’s smog was completedin January 1947 and published on the front page of the Times (Kennedy 1954,5; Air Pollution Foundation 1961, 6; Brienes 1975, 123–125; Ursin and Krier1977, 57–58). Tucker, in his report, specifically pointed to the “chemicalindustries, refineries, food products plants, soap plants, paint plants, buildingmaterials, nonferrous reduction refining and smelting plants, as well asnumerous others of similar types” as major sources of air pollution in the LosAngeles basin, and he advised government action to regulate their airborneemissions (“Text of Report” 1947).Tucker’s key recommendation was that a single countywide district becreated to regulate air emissions in the area. He specifically urged that “thenecessary State legislation be enacted to create an air pollution control district,preferably county-wide” (“Text of Report” 1947). A countywide pollutiondistrict would overcome the difficulties of having to enact and enforceregulations throughout Los Angeles County’s numerous municipalities andunincorporated areas. Tucker’s recommendation was the central feature of airpollution legislation introduced in the California legislature in early 1947(“‘Times’ Expert Offers Smog Plan” 1947; Brienes 1975, chap. 5).Los Angeles city Mayor Fletcher Bowron sought to alter the proposedlegislation by backing “a plan to give incorporated cities a two-thirds majorityon the governing board of the smog district” (Brienes 1975, 126).Bowron’s position was shared by certain Los Angeles county “municipalities,or their agencies, fearing loss of autonomy” (Brienes 1975, 125). After “aseries of meetings” with a legal committee created by the Los Angeles TimesCitizens Smog Advisory Committee, and “headed by James L. Beebe, a formerhead of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce,” Mayor Bowron andthe “objecting cities abandoned their opposition” (Brienes 1975, 125–126).Significant support for the legislative effort to a create countywide smogcontrol agency came from the Los Angeles business community. Businessorganizations supporting the bill included the Automobile Club of SouthernCalifornia, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the PasadenaChamber of Commerce (Kennedy 1954, 14). The “editorial department ofthe Los Angeles Times . . . [was] directed by Norman Chandler, publisher, tovigorously support the smog legislation.” Kennedy goes on to report that theeditorial board put forward a “newsletter [in support of the legislation] which