Proposed Department of Waste Management Gets Mixed Reaction

Gov. George Deukmejian’s stepped-up attack on the state’s toxic-waste problem encountered much support, some of it qualified, but also some strong opposition Friday as officials began to lay the groundwork for his proposed new department of waste management.

Supporters testified during the first of two hearings on the plan that it would go a long way to cut the duplication and red tape that has hampered toxic-waste cleanup. But others were equally adamant that the new department would politicize the issue and leave some serious problems, such as pesticide contamination, untouched.

“The concept of a department headed by a politically accountable director and commission raises the prospect that the waste management issue will be politicized even more than it is today,” James W. Bruner of Waste Management Inc. told the panel of Deukmejian’s top advisers.

The governor’s waste management plan, announced last month during his State of the State address and detailed in a speech last week, is intended to combine operations of 12 separate entities that now deal with toxics and other kinds of waste into one department under the jurisdiction of the state Health and Welfare Agency.

11-Member Waste Commission

The director of the new agency would be accountable to the health and welfare secretary, who is a gubernatorial appointee.

An 11-member waste commission would be named to oversee the department. But it would not have the same kind of independent power to review decisions and set policy as some quasi-independent boards that now handle segments of the toxics issue.

Deukmejian is scheduled to present the Legislature with a specific plan for his department by April 11. Of particular concern to environmental groups are plans to place under the jurisdiction of the new department much of the work currently handled by the Water Resources Control Board and its regional Water Quality Control Boards.

“We have always been able to present our case to (the boards) in fair and open proceedings,” said Michael Paparian, director of the Sierra Club’s state legislative office. “If any party is not satisfied with the decision of a local board, they can appeal it to the state board and then to the courts.

“By contrast, many of the decisions of a department would be handled behind closed doors with little opportunity for public scrutiny. The public deserves better.”

Paparian also said that a new toxics department should not be placed under the Health and Welfare Agency since the bulk of its work is in delivering welfare and health care and emphasis on toxics “would pale in comparison.”

Pesticide Control

On the issue of pesticide control, agricultural interests want the Department of Food and Agriculture to retain control over their use. But environmentalists said that means that the new department could do nothing to investigate possible land and ground-water contamination caused by pesticide use.

Health and Welfare Secretary David B. Swoap tried to deflect some of the criticism, saying that pesticide disposal would be monitored by the new department.

But Clare Berryhill, director of the Department of Food and Agriculture, said he sees no reason to allow a new department to oversee the use of pesticides. “The Department of Food and Agriculture is doing an excellent job and is a model for the United States in that area, so I see no reason to make a move like that,” Berryhill said.

In defense of the governor’s plan for the new department, Swoap said that Deukmejian inherited a program that was “in chaos” and was producing “no noticeable progress in the war against toxic wastes.” He said a new department is needed because “people want to know who to come to and who to hold responsible for the (toxics) problems they encounter.”