Proposition 65: Clean Water Initiative

The single most important mark we make on our ballot Nov. 4 may not be next to the name of a candidate for public office. In my opinion, the final tally on Proposition 65 will have a greater impact on Los Angeles County and the entire state than any one of the other issues and races in this election.

Proposition 65 is labeled by proponents as the “Clean Water Initiative.” Preservation of a pure drinking water supply is essential to the well-being of all Californians. My concern is that the provisions in Proposition 65 will disserve the welfare of the people of this state far more than they will facilitate a cleaner water supply.

Most of the publicity surrounding this issue has thus far failed to point out some very important aspects of the proposition that must be considered. If this initiative is to insure clean water, why is the proposed law littered with exemptions for the state’s largest polluters?

All federal, state and local government entities would be exempt from the law, as well as employers with less than 10 employees and private citizens. It is ludicrous to exempt these groups from complying with “safe drinking water standards” that would be placed on the private business sector.

Proposition 65, if passed, will severely impact agriculture, our state’s leading industry. A vast number of Californians have in some way felt the squeeze from a depressed farm economy. Proposition 65 could deal the fatal blow to an industry that needs a boost rather than another kick in the teeth.

This law would prohibit the use of many safe, necessary agri-chemicals used to produce high quality, wholesome fresh food, free of decay and disease.

California boasts the heart of the nation’s agriculture lands, and we cannot afford to stand by while anti-business, anti-agriculture politicians cripple the industry that provides so many citizens with their livelihoods.

In addition, proponents of Proposition 65 are not telling us about the proposition’s “bounty hunter” provision, which rewards people who successfully sue alleged violators regardless of merit or personal injury by awarding these individuals 25% of the damages! I shudder to think what this part of the law do to our civil court calendars in California, already overburdened with frivolous, unnecessary legal proceedings.

We are faced with the task of keeping our water pure for our children and theirs. It is a battle we must continue to wage. I am concerned that Proposition 65 would be the wrong weapon with which to fight. Our biggest polluters will still pollute.

California now has in existence more than 50 anti-pollution laws. I encourage our state leaders to continue to use these laws in our effort to protect the environment.

I believe the passage of Proposition 65 will do many things to our state, one of the least of which is improve water quality. Please vote No on Proposition 65.

JACK PANDOL JR.

Delano