Environmental Groups Offer Their Dream List : California: Advocates and politicians propose a sweeping initiative enforced by a conservation cop.

In one of the most audacious ballot initiatives ever offered to California voters, the state’s major environmental groups and Democratic candidate for governor John K. Van de Kamp teamed up Tuesday with a proposal to turn California greener, to try and make its food, air and water cleaner, and to put a new conservationist cop on the beat in Sacramento.

Months in the drafting, the 39-page ballot proposition amounts to an environmentalist dream list for the 1990s. Its sponsors, among them some of the more prominent lawyers of the environmental movement and a few of its key politicians, promised that the proposition would:

Phase out cancer-causing agricultural pesticides, tighten safeguards against oil spills, restrict chemicals that pollute the atmosphere, limit waste discharges, plant more trees, preserve tracts of old-growth virgin redwoods and expand health protection for farm workers.

A huge pot of $840 million in environmental financing is called for--$500 million in a trust fund for coastal oil spills, $300 million for reforestation projects and for acquisition of redwoods, and $40 million a year in grants for environmental research projects.

And to enforce it all, and every other similar law on the books, the initiative establishes a new elected office of state environmental advocate with the power to sue anyone in government who gets in the way. The new office would come with a guaranteed annual budget of $40 million.

The November, 1990, ballot proposition is an integral plank in a unique campaign strategy of Van de Kamp, the incumbent attorney general. His idea is to put his promises in writing so voters do not have to take his word for it but can “vote for me, vote for my platform.” This initiative is one of three he is pursuing.

For environmentalists, the proposition represents an effort to join behind a consensus package and ride what they believe is a rising tide of public anxiety about the deteriorating quality of life in California.

For one other politician in the mix, Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), the proposition represents the potential for a future in statewide politics. Hayden was chairman of the committee that pulled the environmentalists and Van de Kamp together and drafted the proposition. He is expected to chair the campaign on its behalf. And on Tuesday, he suggested that the proposed environmental advocate to be elected in 1992 would be “a great office.”

“Today we are putting before the people of California a document that holds the promise of cleaner water, purer food and a healthier atmosphere,” Van de Kamp said at press conferences in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He went on to describe it as an “environmental bill of rights.”

Hayden proclaimed the measure “the most significant proposal for protecting the environment ever placed before the voters in this country.”

Six environmental groups have a hand in the proposal, and most of them were on hand for Tuesday’s unveiling.

“It puts California back in the lead, where California belongs,” said Bob Hattoy of the Sierra Club.

“A home run!” said Al Meyerhoff of the National Resources Defense Council.

“A first bold step into what we hope will be the decade of the environment,” said Lucy Blake of the California League of Conservation Voters.

Other groups behind the proposal include the National Toxics Campaign, Campaign California, and Citizens for Better Environment.

Sponsors must obtain at least 500,000 signatures in the next five months to assure the proposition a place on the November ballot. Other questions about the dimensions of the campaign, its budget and composition, remain undecided pending the reaction of potential opponents.

Sponsors said that vociferous resistance is possible, particularly from agribusiness, once the measure is distributed widely and studied. The final version of the proposal was not complete and available to outsiders until late Monday night.

On the other hand, environmentalists said they did not want to presume that this campaign will polarize the state along old battle lines--consumers and environmentalists vs. growers and pesticide producers. In particular, sponsors of the initiative said they hope that some growers would find sufficient cause to support the proposal, or some of its provisions, or at least not engage in an hugely expensive campaign to defeat it.

“After all, it was the apple growers who lost $100 million in the Alar scare,” noted Meyerhoff of the National Resources Defense Council. That was the disclosure that the chemical Alar was left on apples, which sent sales plunging.

However, early and tentative grower response was not favorable.

“Chances are we’re going to find that it’s overreacting to the situation. And it’s going to make it tougher for farmers to make a living,” said Clark Biggs, spokesman for the California Farm Bureau Federation. “We know it’s part of the attorney general’s campaign for governor and we don’t like that.”

Republican candidate for governor and U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson was equivocal in reacting.

In a long letter, Wilson, who wants to project himself as a environmental-leaning Republican, lauded many of goals of the proposition.

In particular, Wilson said he supported the idea of eliminating poisons from food. But he questioned other areas of the measure--whether California should embark unilaterally on its own campaign to eliminate CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, which are blamed for ozone depletion. Or, whether it is fiscally prudent to require secondary treatment of all sewage flowing into the ocean. Both are provisions of the initiative.

Wilson flatly opposed the establishing an elected office for an environmental advocate. “In my judgment, it is the responsibility of the governor to be the chief environmental advocate. I do not intend to delegate such a primary responsibility.”

Van de Kamp’s chief Democratic rival, Dianne Feinstein, former mayor of San Francisco, said she had not read the entire measure but shared a concern for the environment. “It’s well-intended; we’ll see if its well-drafted,” her campaign said.

Under terms of the proposal, agricultural chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive injury would be phased out of use by 1996. State officials could extend the deadline three years in the event that no safe replacement chemicals are available or in the event of provable agricultural hardship.

Sponsors said that if applied today, about 15 specific chemicals would fall under the phase-out, including important fungicides, pesticides and fumigants. Initiative sponsors acknowledged that safe replacements are not now available.

To counter would-be critics who might say that farmers are being driven into an impossible situation, the measure provides $40 million a year in research grants for such things as research for safer chemicals.

Of larger geographical importance, the initiative would impose the same limitations on residual pesticides in food imported from other states and countries as established for California grown. Because of the huge consumer market here, sponsors said this provision would have the effect of changing pesticide use and formulas around the world.

The proposal does not directly attack smog. Sponsors said they did not want to duplicate the work of agencies such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

But it does address two types of airborne chemicals--carbon dioxide and CFCs.

Without saying how the goals are to be accomplished, the initiative declares that California must reduce carbon dioxide emissions 20% by the year 2000 and 40% by 2010. Scientists say carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will contribute to global warming, commonly called the “greenhouse” effect. The measure takes a strong hand on CFCs--ordering them phased out by 1997 except in cases of medical need or economic hardship.

One of the last elements that drafters agreed to put in the measure is also one that wanders furthest from the “air, water and food” theme. This is a ban on logging virgin redwoods for one year. The idea is to give the government time to survey remaining stands and buy up the choicest, using $200 million of the proceeds of a $300-million bond issue that is contained in the proposition.

The remaining $100 million would be used for assorted other reforestation projects, urban and rural. Additionally, developers in the future would be required to plant one tree for every 500 square feet of new construction.

California law requires that an initiative cover only a single subject. Because this one is so broad, early questions arose over whether it would fit under that requirement. Sponsors said they felt they met the test because, in the words of one drafter, “everything fits under the subject of environmental protection.”

Anthony Miller, chief deputy secretary of state, agreed that the single-subject rule can have a broad interpretation, although the courts have not ruled recently on any significant test case. “As long as you can come up with one concept to include all the parts, it’s probably OK,” he said.

NEXT STEP

Sponsors must now obtain 372,178 valid signatures of registered voters during the next 150 days to qualify the proposition for a spot on the ballot on Nov. 8, 1990. By rule of thumb, 500,000 to 600,000 signatures actually will have to be collected to assure that enough of those who sign are actually registered to vote.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVE FOOD

Calls for the phase-out of all agricultural chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm by 1996. State officials can add a three-year extension in the event of agricultural hardship.

Food imported to California must meet the same standards as that grown locally.

Responsibility for the health of farm workers to be transferred from the state Department of Agriculture to the Health Department.

AIR

Calls for phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons, linked to destruction of atmospheric ozone, by 1997.

Establishes a goal for reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide, suspected of contributing to global greenhouse effect, of 20% by 2000 and 40% by 2010. Methods for achieving goals are unspecified.

Requires developers to plant a tree for every 500 square feet of future development. A $300-million bond issue is proposed for reforestation efforts and to buy virgin stands of redwoods.

WATER

By taxing oil passing through California at 25 cents a barrel, a $500-million fund is proposed to respond to oil spills.

Vastly expands contingency planning and financial responsibility for spills.

Reaffirms that all California public sewage plants meet federal discharge standards by 2000. Industries that discharge into state waters will have to establish a toxics monitoring program.

OTHER

Prohibits cutting of old-growth redwoods for one year while the state takes inventory and makes public purchase arrangements. Afterward, clear-cutting of such stands is prohibited.

ENFORCEMENT

Starting in 1992, a new Office of Environmental Advocate is established. The office will be elective. The advocate is allowed an annual budget of $40 million to award grants for environmental research.