Making Prop. 65 Work

California voters overwhelmingly have demonstrated their concern about toxic contamination of drinking supplies, and have established a dramatic new policy for stopping such pollution. This was done through the adoption of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water initiative on the Tuesday ballot. The challenge now is to make the new policy work well.

Generally, environmental law allows chemicals to be used at will until regulators have determined that they constitute a threat and then ban or restrict them.

Under Proposition 65, however, the burden is shifted. In cases where no safe levels have been established, manufacturers or users must demonstrate that these products can be used without posing a health threat, if there is any chance that the chemicals might reach drinking-water supplies. The measure specifically targets chemicalsthat are known or suspected causes of cancer or birth and reproductive defects. Its commendable aim is not to clean up pollution after it occurs, but to cut it off at the source.

We and others opposed Proposition 65, chiefly because of ambiguities in the language of the complex measure, specifically over definition of what is “safe” or might pose a “significant risk.” Authors of the measure claim that the legislation is flexible enough to allow for orderly and responsible implementation of the new law. They have expressed a willingness to seek amendments in the Legislature to adjust some awkward provisions dealing with enforcement of the act.

Proposition 65 can become a useful weapon in California’s arsenal of environmental safeguards if the governor, the act’s environmental sponsors and its former opponents cooperate with state regulators in making it work effectively.