Governor Dealt a Blow on Waste Control Plan

In a major setback for Gov. George Deukmejian, a key Assembly committee recommended Wednesday that his proposal to create a new waste management department be rejected because it would weaken enforcement of toxics laws.

On a 9-3 party-line vote, the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee recommended that the full Assembly veto the governor’s proposal, a recommendation that the Democratic-controlled Assembly is expected to follow.

In doing so, the committee rejected Administration offers to rush through follow-up legislation to correct what top Deukmejian officials admitted were flaws in the plan.

“I would ask that the governor withdraw the plan,” said committee Chairwoman Sally Tanner (D-El Monte). “It’s a matter of serious defects that would cause important laws not to be enforced.”

Action Assailed

Deukmejian promptly released a statement blasting the committee action as “destructive” and “shortsighted.” He said Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) “has an opportunity to correct the mistake that was made today and, instead, join with me in taking a significant step forward in the state’s war against toxics.”

The Republican governor’s proposal to create a new Cabinet-level waste management department is considered one of the most significant initiatives of his Administration. His plan calls for consolidating the duties of a variety of government agencies into a single department that would be responsible for enforcing toxics laws and cleaning up hazardous wastes.

Although Democrats said they support the concept of creating a single department, they argued that the governor’s proposal would weaken existing laws, including those governing water quality, contaminated farm runoff water and underground storage of chemicals.

Defects Admitted

Health and Welfare Secretary David Swoap acknowledged Wednesday that the governor’s plan has at least 11 defects that would have to be corrected. However, he argued that the reorganization plan would not result in weakened enforcement.

Under the legislative format chosen by the governor, his plan cannot be amended by the Legislature. It will take effect July 16 unless either the Assembly or the Senate vetoes it.

To correct the defects, Swoap proposed that the Legislature adopt two additional measures: an emergency bill delaying the effective date of the proposal until Jan. 1, 1986, and a 62-page follow-up measure to make corrections.

During the last week, legislators and Swoap have tangled over whether the flaws in the plan are “drafting errors,” as Swoap claims, or reflections of philosophical differences over management of toxic pollutants.

Several committee members, reluctant to agree to a follow-up bill when they have not yet seen it, questioned whether they can trust Swoap’s assurances that it will resolve all of their concerns before the July 16 deadline.

“You’re asking us to buy a pig in a poke,” Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly (D-Sacramento) told Swoap.

Earlier in the hearing, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp testified that he was concerned that the legislative maneuver of a follow-up bill could weaken enforcement of about 140 toxic cleanup orders issued by the state Water Resources Control Board.

Recommendation to Governor

He recommended that the governor withdraw his plan and submit a new version, submit a revised plan in bill form or call a special session of the Legislature to consider his plan.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda), a key advocate of scuttling the plan, argued: “I think this issue is important enough that we ought not act in haste in the last days of the session.”

However, Deukmejian called on Speaker Brown to reject the panel’s recommendation and warned, “Those members who voted to reject our positive and honest effort to improve the state’s management of toxic waste ultimately must be made to share the responsibility if we fall short of the public’s legitimate expectations.

“I view the action of those legislators as being destructive when they could have been constructive and shortsighted when they had a chance to be visionary,” he said.