Budget Expands Toxic Waste War, Cuts Coast Panel

Gov. George Deukmejian called Thursday for a multimillion-dollar assault on toxic wastes and in doing so served notice that he would not be upstaged on what many see as the key environmental issue of next year’s elections.

The governor unveiled a $33.6-billion budget for fiscal 1985-86 that increases toxic-related spending by $153 million, including adding 196 positions.

Included in those figures is the $100 million in bonds approved by voters last year to clean up hazardous waste sites. That amount includes 88 positions.

The governor also proposed spending $1.9 million to enforce a new toxic pits control law approved by the Legislature last year, set aside $3.7 million to ferret out and control leaking underground tanks that threaten drinking water supplies, and called for spending $4 million to establish contamination standards for 52 substances so that the state will have a basis to move against violations.

At the same time, however, Deukmejian proposed deep cuts in the California Coastal Commission.

Despite criticism of the Coastal Commission cuts and charges that in some cases the governor was merely restoring Democratic programs he had earlier cut, the governor won high marks overall and in so doing helped establish his environmental credentials for his expected reelection bid next year.

Sierra Club chief lobbyist Mike Paparian observed, “I think Deukmejian has rightfully identified toxics as the premier environmental issue of the day and realizes that the public perceptions of his environmental record are going to be based in large part on his work in toxics.”

Paparian described Deukmejian’s toxic spending as a “a fairly substantial increase in all areas we thought were important. In terms of toxics, we’re definitely very encouraged.”

Corey Brown, general counsel to the Planning and Conservation League, called the increased toxic spending “significant” and added: “We believe they will greatly improve the toxic program.”

Joel S. Moskowitz, deputy director of Toxic Substances Control, denied that the governor’s political future was a major factor in toxic waste spending.

“I don’t think the governor is looking at this proposal in political terms. He’s looking at it in managerial terms and doing the best job in providing strong leadership,” Moskowitz said.

However, in his televised State of the State address on Wednesday, the governor placed considerable emphasis on his environmental record. At one point, he claimed credit for supporting the preservation of more than a million acres in California wilderness areas without saying that he opposed the larger 1.8-million-acre compromise backed by California’s two U.S. senators and signed by President Reagan.

Compared to Deukmejian’s toxic program, the California Coastal Commission, which the governor has long wished to disband, did not fare as well.

Last August, during behind-the-scenes negotiations, the commission requested 27 new positions to bring its total staff to 157. Deukmejian’s new budget, however, which cuts last year’s allotment of $8.1 million to $6.5 million, not only denies the increase but cuts the commission’s staff by 16.

Moreover, according to an internal memo obtained by The Times, the commission was accused of being “less than loyal” to the Administration in proposing an increase and was directed by the governor’s Department of Finance to justify cuts “so that it does not appear that these budget change proposals are being submitted simply to comply with the directives received from the Administration.”

Michael Fischer, executive director of the commission, said Thursday he was “puzzled and surprised” by the cutbacks.

The Administration said the cuts were justified because the commission had completed work on numerous local coastal plans.

Coastal Commission executives, however, have said that the most formidable task--approving more controversial plans for such areas as Malibu--remains, and a cut in staff levels would seriously impede the work.

Deukmejian asked for no funding for a proposed new department of waste, which he announced Wednesday in his State of the State address.

Finance Director Jesse R. Huff said funds from existing toxic programs would be redirected later to the new department after the department is approved.

While the Administration will not submit its plans for the new department for several months, one Administration official said it would undoubtedly involve consolidating the functions of the California Waste Management Board and the Department of Health Service’s Toxic Substances Control Division.