Plan to Curb Pesticide Challenges Revived

Amid charges of double-crossing, a Deukmejian Administration proposal aimed at restricting legal challenges to pesticide spraying was unexpectedly revived Friday as a compromise amendment to weaken it was killed in the Senate by rural legislators.

Unless the grower-backed measure is vetoed by the governor--which is considered highly unlikely--the public, beginning Jan. 1, will be left with few legal tools to challenge state-ordered pest eradication programs that use toxic pesticides.

The defeat suffered by environmentalist and consumer groups came as Assembly Democrats and others who forged the compromise with the Republican Administration were led into a procedural trap and agricultural-area lawmakers were quick to shut the door.

‘We Had an Agreement’

Legislators who pushed for the compromise charged Friday that they were tricked and “double-crossed” by the Administration.

“We had an agreement. We performed, they didn’t,” snapped Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly of Sacramento, who helped forge the compromise.

But Assemblyman Norman Waters (D-Plymouth), who introduced the bill, and Hans Van Nes, deputy director of the state Department of Food and Agriculture which sponsored it, denied engineering the agreement’s defeat.

“It was all due to last-minute frustrations,” Van Nes said, referring to the fact that the compromise was worked out just one day before the Legislature’s scheduled adjournment. “We made a commitment and we tried to tell (rural senators) that.”

Persistence Rewarded

In a related matter, persistence finally paid off Friday for Sen. Nicholas Petris (D-Oakland), who after 20 years of defeats finally persuaded the Legislature to approve his measure requiring farmers to post warning signs around their fields whenever using dangerous pesticides.

The posting provisions, heavily opposed by agricultural interests, were rejected by several committees this year. But they were hastily amended into a bill on the Assembly floor on Friday and passed both houses.

Gov. George Deukmejian, however, is expected to veto the bill. The Assembly passed it 41 to 34 and the Senate approved it 25 to 11.

The Administration’s pesticide spraying measure, quietly introduced in the last weeks of the session in response to a court decision blocking an apple maggot eradication program in Humboldt County, scraps requirements for environmental impact reports on all pesticide spraying and limits legal challenges to whether the state has abused its discretion.

Exemptions Limited

Pressed by some Assembly Democrats, the Administration agreed to limit the environmental exemptions to emergency pest eradication programs. It also endorsed changes to the bill that would allow courts to consider such issues as dangerous to health in deciding whether to halt spraying.

State food and agriculture officials said the compromise would not cause problems for farmers.

However, rather than delay passage of the bill until the amendments could be prepared, Waters persuaded the Assembly on Thursday to approve the bill in its original form and promptly send it to Deukmejian. He assured those who opposed the bill in its stronger form that the compromise would be placed into another measure and approved Friday.

Rural senators did not participate in the negotiations and late Friday they refused to ratify the agreement, derailing the compromise.

Matter of Integrity

“They (liberals and the Administration) felt they struck a deal and that their integrity was being held up by us,” said Sen. Rose Ann Vuich (D-Dinuba), who carried the Waters measure in its stronger form on the Senate floor. “The problem was the senators were not in on any kind of agreement.”

In a frantic effort to save the compromise, Assembly Democrats pleaded Friday night with Waters to support a motion to rescind the Assembly’s earlier approval of the Administration measure. But without Waters’ support, opponents conceded they did not have the votes to rescind the passage.

In the end, Waters refused to support any action, saying he feared angering his farming constituents and jeopardizing the pest eradication program.

Done All Possible

“My commitment was to do everything possible,” Waters said. “And I think I’ve done that. I don’t know what else I can do.”

Deukmejian could veto the bill, which would take effect Jan. 1. But food and agriculture Director Clare Berryhill pledged Friday in a letter to lawmakers that he will support urgency legislation to revive elements of the compromise when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

Dejected opponents, however, pointed out that there is no assurance that a separate measure seeking to diminish the authority of food and agriculture officials would be supported at that time.

“They wonder why we go to court to challenge them when they can’t even keep their agreement,” said an exasperated Michael Paparian, a Sierra Club lobbyist.