Toxic Waste Plan May Give Mayor Campaign Boost

A group of politicians and environmentalists, including Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s chief of staff, has drafted a broad initiative on toxic wastes that would strengthen environmental laws and could mean more voter support for Bradley’s expected candidacy for governor.

Gov. George Deukmejian’s performance in the area of toxics regulation has drawn harsh criticism from environmentalists and is viewed by Bradley supporters as one of the most vulnerable points in the governor’s record.

Tom Houston, the mayor’s chief of staff and one of five drafters of the proposed measure, refused to discuss its political implications, but others in the Bradley camp said the initiative attempt is a strategy that the mayor would support and that would be helpful to his election chances.

“I think it will bring out the kind of voters who will want to vote for Tom Bradley,” said Mary Nichols, Bradley’s campaign manager.

“Obviously, the initiative implies strong criticism of the governor’s record,” said David Roe, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the drafters of the proposed measure.

“This initiative could be the focus of the toxics issue during the coming election year,” Roe said. “We certainly hope it will.”

In contrast to 1982 when Bradley, as a candidate for governor, alienated environmental groups, he clearly is courting them now. Both Nichols and Tom Quinn, Bradley’s campaign chairman, have strong environmental credentials--each chaired the state’s Air Resources Board--and Houston is closely allied with the initiative proposal.

The initiative would meet two concerns--contamination of drinking water and exposure of farm workers to dangerous pesticides--that legislators attempted to address in bills that Deukmejian vetoed this year. The governor’s critics say that, in general, he has avoided direct action on the hazardous waste issue in favor of creating new layers of bureaucracy within the state’s waste management system.

As described by Roe, the initiative would prohibit contamination of drinking water with substances that cause cancer or birth defects, would require businesses to warn people, including agricultural workers, before exposing them to cancer-causing chemicals, would make it a crime for public officials to withhold information about illegal discharges of hazardous waste and would raise the levels of fines and jail terms for people convicted of illegal dumping.

According to Roe, a key provision of the measure would divert part of the income from the increased fines to the $15-million state Superfund account used to clean up hazardous waste dumps. Because most of that money comes from a tax on business, the diversion of income from fines would allow the tax to be lowered, said Roe.

Roe said the initiative would make it easier to file suit against firms that contaminate drinking water or expose people, without warning, to dangerous chemicals. To win, he said, plaintiffs would have only to demonstrate exposure, not to prove injury.

“What it is doing is telling people they can take direct action and no longer have to wait for the bureaucracy to do something,” Roe said.

Roe said that the initiative was sent Monday to the attorney general’s office for a review, the first step before sponsors can seek public support.

Roe said the initiative has only two signatures, his and that of Carl Pope, a lobbyist with the Sierra Club.

He said other drafters, besides Houston, include Assemblyman Gray Davis (D-Sherman Oaks), and Deputy Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Barry Groveman, who specializes in environmental matters.

Davis said he thinks that the initiative, even if it does not pass, would create a climate of support for anti-toxic legislation.

“The presence of an initiative will have a lubricating effect on pending legislation,” Davis said. “I may offer some legislation that tracks this initiative, and I expect others to do the same.”

For the initiative to qualify for the ballot in November, 1986, its supporters must obtain about 400,000 signatures, equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.