Political Ploys Seen in Debate on Toxics Law

Few issues have generated as much concern among California voters as the growing problem of toxic wastes--or as much maneuvering among politicians looking ahead to the Nov. 4 election.

A coalition of liberal Democrats and environmentalists has succeeded in placing a tough toxics initiative on the ballot--Proposition 65. Many of its supporters hope that the measure will draw liberal voters to the polls and give Democratic candidates an edge in close races.

Opponents call the initiative a carefully crafted conspiracy to damage Republican candidates, who are more likely to oppose the initiative because of what some see as its potentially adverse impact on business and industry.

And GOP Gov. George Deukmejian, who is facing Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a Democrat, in his reelection campaign, is calling for the Legislature to revive a stalled measure of his own, one that would put $150 million in bonds for toxic waste programs before voters on the same ballot.

His opponents contend that Deukmejian simply wants a measure on the ballot that will help portray him as a champion of toxics cleanup and minimize damage to Republican office seekers who oppose Proposition 65.

With only two weeks left before the Legislature adjourns for the year, however, Deukmejian’s bond proposal is languishing in the Assembly with few signs that he is pushing hard for its passage.

“The Administration hoped it would pass,” said the author of the bill, Sen. Becky Morgan (R-Los Altos Hills), “but they are not twisting any arms.”

Assembly Democrats have refused to support the bond proposal unless their Republican colleagues agree to other bond measures totaling $400 million that would provide money for school bus safety, wildlife habitats, beaches, libraries and treatment of sewage and other pollutants from Mexico that affect San Diego County. Morgan and others say there are no signs that the impasse has been broken, but there is still time to resolve differences before the Legislature adjourns Aug. 29.

Source of Funds

The Deukmejian proposal would provide money for toxics cleanup, for monitoring leaking underground gasoline and chemical storage tanks, and for encouraging new methods of disposing of toxic chemicals.

Meanwhile, Proposition 65 is not only on the ballot, but also seems to enjoy overwhelming popular support in opinion polls.

The initiative would require state health officials to set stringent limits on the amounts of chemicals known to cause birth defects and cancer permitted in drinking water, while doubling fines for illegal dumpers and requiring businesses to inform workers and consumers about exposure to the toxic substances.

Opponents contend that the limits are unrealistically restrictive and will drive industry out of California.

In addition to Bradley, the list of Democrats who have thrown support behind the initiative includes U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, who lent the initiative drive $25,000 from his own campaign funds, and Assemblyman Tom Hayden of Santa Monica, who with his wife, Jane Fonda, and his newly renamed political organization, Campaign California, has fueled the initiative campaign with $151,405 in cash and services.

Other backers of the initiative include Assemblyman Gray Davis (D-Los Angeles), whose campaign committee guaranteed a $50,000 bank loan to help launch the initiative effort. However, when Davis decided to run for state controller, the initiative’s authors turned to Hayden to help bankroll their campaign.

When the Los Angeles Times Poll asked California voters who had just cast ballots in the June primary to name what they considered to be the most important problems facing the state, toxic waste disposal placed high on the list, equalled or surpassed only by crime, illegal aliens and insurance rates.

Polls conducted for the Proposition 65 campaign committee show that voters support it by a ratio of almost nine to one, said one of the initiative’s chief authors, David B. Roe, senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund.

So uphill is the battle to defeat the measure that the chief political consultant for the anti-65 campaign, Doug Watts, complained: “I’d have to be a human fly to win this thing.”

Opponents of the initiative hope to raise $5.7 million in an effort to defeat Proposition 65, according to an internal Chevron Corp. memo made public last week by the initiative’s backers. The memo noted that the company has already contributed $40,000 to the anti-65 campaign, a total that would eventually grow to as much as $150,000. The document urged Chevron executives to avoid being drawn into a debate when proponents attack the oil and chemical companies that are opposing it.

Watts said he doubts that the opponents will reach their fund-raising goal. One industry lobbyist, who asked not to be identified, said some companies are questioning whether to spend any money at all against an initiative that appears almost certain to pass. “I think industry is going to lose on this one,” the lobbyist said.

‘Transparently Weak’

Watts argued that top aides to Democrat Bradley “dreamed (Proposition 65) up to prop up the transparently weak candidacy of Tom Bradley. They teamed up with Carl Pope (political director of the Sierra Club) and David Roe, who are trying to get at agriculture and big oil by playing off of public hysteria on toxics.”

However, Roe and others insist they drafted the initiative out of frustration with a system--and a Republican Administration--that has failed to deal with the problems of public exposure to toxic chemicals. “There’s a chronic gap between rhetoric and results,” Roe said.

In 1985, Roe and Pope joined forces with Barry Groveman, an environmental prosecutor who recently took a leave of absence from the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, to write the initiative.

Bradley’s chief deputy, Tom Houston, helped with the drafting. Houston said that he has had a long-standing interest in the problem of toxic waste disposal and cleanup.

“I didn’t sit here and think of the political advantages of this,” he said, while acknowledging that the initiative may be of use to his boss, who has endorsed Proposition 65 and urged Deukmejian to do so as well.

Times Poll Cited

He and other Bradley backers pointed to a Los Angeles Times poll in May showing that by a ratio of more than three to one, voters believe that Bradley would do a better job than Deukmejian in handling the state’s toxics problems.

To qualify the measure for the ballot, the drafters knew that they would need substantial sums of money to gather the 393,835 voter signatures needed--and they turned to liberal Democrats to get it.

And some of those who agreed to join the effort believed the measure could become a political “litmus test” on environmental measures that could make a difference in otherwise close campaigns.

“There are a multiple of agendas,” Hayden said. “From an environmental prospective, the initiative is a breakthrough in state toxics policy, breaking a paralysis. For Democrats, it presents an issue that can galvanize swing voters.”

Darry Sragow, manager of the Cranston reelection campaign, agreed: “What it (the initiative) does is draw the attention of voters to an issue on which Alan is very strong.”

Not Just a Tactic

However, Sragow, who serves on the pro-65 steering committee, insisted that Cranston did not become involved simply as a tactic to help him defeat his Republican challenger, Rep. Ed Zschau of Los Altos.

But the Zschau campaign, still struggling on how to deal with the issue, disagrees.

Cranston’s financial support for Proposition 65 “further proves it is a Democratic measure, put forth to embarrass Republican candidates,” said Zschau campaign press spokeswoman, Sandy Conlan.

She said that Zschau is still weighing whether to endorse the initiative. However, she asserted that Republicans are going to have trouble endorsing the measure without any amendments. (The statute that would be put on the books if the initiative passes can be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.)

“It’s almost too arbitrary--its rules are too stringent,” Conlan said. “There are some difficult things about the proposition as it is drafted.”

Lack of Agreement

Backers of Proposition 65 say there is a debate within their own ranks about how hard to push for endorsements by Republicans Zschau and Deukmejian.

“There is a contradiction in our camp,” Hayden acknowledged. “Some of us want Deukmejian and Zschau to endorse it. For partisan reasons, some of us don’t.”

Environmentalists Groveman and Roe said that the language of the measure was deliberately softened to avoid a direct attack on the Deukmejian Administration in the hope that Republicans could endorse it.

Nonetheless, Proposition 65 begins by complaining that “state government agencies have failed to provide (the people of California) with adequate protection” against hazardous chemicals. And it reminds voters that “these failures have been serious enough to lead to investigations by federal agencies of the administration of California’s toxic protection programs”--a clear reference to a series of investigations last year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI of Deukmejian’s toxic cleanup efforts.

Deukmejian’s deputy press secretary, Kevin Brett, pointed to public statements by Bradley’s staff indicating the usefulness of the initiative to the Bradley campaign.

Those comments “raise legitimate questions about the initiative and whether the initiative is truly designed to protect public safety or whether it is designed to enhance the mayor’s political ambitions.”

Brett said that the governor is planning to announce his position on all of the measures on the November ballot, including Proposition 65, in the next few days.

And on Thursday, Deukmejian made clear that he considers his own $150-million bond proposal as yet another litmus test on environmental issues, when he called on Bradley to urge Democratic legislators to approve the measure.