Vote to Broaden Prop. 65 Vetoed as ‘Premature’

Legislation that would have let voters decide whether to extend Proposition 65, the anti-toxics initiative, to state and local governments has been vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian as “premature,” his office announced Monday.

“Although passed by the voters almost two years ago, many of the provisions of Proposition 65 were, by its terms, just recently effective,” Deukmejian said in his veto message. “Therefore, a thorough review and evaluation of the impact of Proposition 65 has not yet been accomplished.”

Proposition 65, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in November, 1986, requires businesses to warn the public of exposure to chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. More importantly, it prohibits businesses from discharging such hazardous chemicals into drinking water supplies.

Timing of Provisions

While the warning requirements have taken effect for about 60 chemicals, the discharge ban will not take effect until Oct. 27.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), would have placed a measure on the Nov. 8 ballot requiring the state, cities, counties and other local agencies to comply with most of the warning provisions and pollution standards that businesses already must abide by.

But the measure also included several exemptions for government agencies. For example, it would not have applied to sewage treatment facilities owned and operated by public agencies, chemicals added to drinking water for public health purposes and chemical exposures that resulted from an agency’s response to a public emergency.

Kopp said he was “disappointed” by the veto and argued that local agencies would have had up to 20 months before coming under all the provisions of the measure.

“I will persist,” he said. “I intend to reintroduce it, because the health of Californians is the issue and government engages in as many and sometimes more risky operations as far as health problems are concerned.”

The question of including government agencies under Proposition 65 dates back to the election campaign of 1986, when industry opponents argued that the initiative was “full of exemptions” because it did not apply to state and local government.

Kopp’s bill had the backing of the California Manufacturers Assn. and other industry groups that opposed the initiative and have been lobbying the Deukmejian Administration for favorable regulatory decisions.

It also had the support of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, a co-sponsor of Proposition 65, which had indicated in the election campaign that they would support broadening the initiative.

Powerful Coalition

However, some environmentalists said privately in recent months that they were apprehensive about Kopp’s measure. They feared that it could have added local governments to an already formidable coalition of industry groups that have resisted implementation of Proposition 65.

Opposing the bill was the League of California Cities and the Assn. of California Water Agencies, which argued that subjecting them to Proposition 65 would be too restrictive.

Kopp argued that the present system leads to “disparate and unequal treatment” of businesses and government agencies. “Private industry is subject to the provisions and government is not. That is not a rational classification,” he said.

But Deukmejian, who opposed passage of Proposition 65, said in his veto message: “Were the measure placed on the ballot at this time, the voters would not have the relevant knowledge upon which to make an informed decision. Thus, I believe it is premature to place before the voters an expansion of Proposition 65 until such information is available.”