SHUTTING DOWN AGENCY WOULD BE DIRTY MOVE.

Byline: Marlene Grossman and Martin Schlageter Local View

TALK about bad timing. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn chose the city's celebration of ``Earth Week'' last week to propose eliminating L.A.'s Environmental Affairs Department.

The proposal to merge the department into the city's Department of Sanitation marks an effort to bridge a deficit in the city's $5.3 billion budget by saving approximately $1 million. But the loss of a department dedicated to prioritizing the city's environmental health will cost Angelenos much more.

By eliminating the Environmental Affairs Department, the mayor is putting at risk the advances Los Angeles has made to help clean the air, improve the water and increase environmental education throughout the city. While the move might save money today, investing in environmental protection has benefits that last beyond the fiscal year.

When residents of Pacoima were seeking to curb the pollution emitted into our neighborhoods from local auto repair shops, our community joined with the Environmental Affairs Department to promote cleaner practices. Together, we surveyed auto repair shops and hosted workshops to educate workers and owners about their impact on our community.

In total, the Environmental Affairs Department has reached out to approximately 200 auto shops in and around Pacoima and throughout Los Angeles, preventing polluted runoff and helping to make these businesses cleaner and safer.

When the city wanted to reduce the pollution from its diesel vehicles, the Environmental Affairs Department sought and secured $3.5 million in grants for exhaust filters. This investment makes all Angelenos safer, because diesel exhaust is the primary source of cancer risk in our air.

Through the Environmental Affairs Department's ``Gardens for Kids'' program, over 50 gardens are thriving in schools in the San Fernando Valley alone.

The mayor's plan to dismantle the EAD would, among other things, shift responsibility for alternative-fuel vehicles to the sanitation department and landfill permitting to the Department of Building and Safety. But consolidation into larger departments is likely to diminish the focus on any particular issue.

Moreover, the EAD has a history of seeking out grants to support its work, bringing in $25 million from outside funds in the last 10 years. Consolidation almost certainly ensures that such small grants would be overlooked by a large bureaucratic department.

Without an Environmental Affairs Department, we wonder if environmental initiatives will get shoved aside when no department head is there to speak out on their behalf. We wonder if environmental policy for the city will be developed piecemeal with each department concerned only with its self-interest.

Ironically, this is the situation that led to the creation of the Environmental Affairs Department in the first place. In 1990, it was determined that the city needed a specialized department to ensure that environmental concerns didn't get lost amid the day-to-day operations of large city departments.

With so many important environmental issues facing one of the most important cities in the world, one would expect the mayor to put forth environmental initiatives and dedicate staff to reducing storm-water runoff, expanding recycling, boosting mass transit, planting trees, creating parks and developing renewable energy. Unfortunately, it appears that Hahn's budget plan is widening the cracks through which environmental priorities will fall.

After all, if the environment were a priority for the mayor, he would want to strengthen the one city department dedicated to the issue rather than dismantle it.