Big Fight Brews Over ‘Big Green’ Initiative’s Scope

It’s called “Big Green” and it’s the most sweeping environmental initiative ever proposed in California.

If it qualifies for the November ballot, Californians will be making decisions on everything from saving ancient redwood forests and blocking offshore oil development to slowing global warming and outlawing cancer-causing pesticides in food. And they would also be creating a new elective post of state environmental czar to enforce their will.

That’s just for starters.

Never has there been so comprehensive a measure enveloping so many environmental causes.

The very breadth of the measure creates the potential for mobilizing the most formidable array of special interests against a single issue since Howard Jarvis’ tax-reform initiative of 1978.

Two rival initiatives are already being readied by agricultural interests and the timber industry. Others, including major oil companies, the Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and business interests in general, have yet to decide what to do.

Whatever the case, the measure is likely to command center stage in the state’s November general election campaign.

Backers say Big Green--known officially as the Environmental Protection Act of 1990--is a testament to a growing perception that seemingly isolated environmental issues are connected, that weakening any strand in the ecological web threatens the whole.

“It’s much clearer now than it was 20 years ago that the future of the planet may well be at stake,” said Michael Paparian of the Sierra Club’s Sacramento office. “I think there clearly is an increasing linkage that the public is seeing between environmental issues.”

But there is old-fashioned political strategy, as well as environmental consciousness, in the making of Big Green.

Co-sponsored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and his staff, the initiative has become a centerpiece of his campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Van de Kamp, like most politicians, is mindful of public-opinion polls showing strong support for environmental causes. He clearly hopes to ride the wave of environmental activism into the governor’s mansion.

At the same time, a coalition of sometimes-divergent environmental groups, who despair that the California Legislature and governor will ever act decisively, joined Van de Kamp in fashioning the measure.

Environmentalists argue that by rallying under a single banner--even one colored by Van de Kamp’s political ambitions--they can focus limited resources on a single, all-encompassing environmental campaign.

Their strategy could work. And many business interests, mindful of popular concern about the environment, are especially alarmed.

“We just have more people, more cars and there is a feeling that the environmental quality is not as great as it once was,” said Kirk West, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, who opposes the measure.

“If there’s an environmental initiative that can somehow touch these concerns it’s likely to have strong appeal,” West said.

If it qualifies for November’s ballot and is approved by voters, the food we eat, the water we drink, the oceans in which we play, the price we pay for electricity, the products we use, even how we get from one place to another will be affected.

And the effects are likely to be felt throughout the nation.

“This will fundamentally affect American agriculture, because food containing pesticides that are phased out in California also can’t be sold in California,” said Albert H. Meyerhoff, an attorney with the National Resources Defense Council and a backer of Big Green.

“It will stop the use of the most hazardous pesticides in the rest of the country and abroad. This is going to accomplish a great deal of our national agenda.”

Industry representatives say privately that they are uncertain whether Big Green can be defeated given the public’s concern over such issues as pesticides in food and offshore oil drilling.

Many of the state’s top business leaders are examining the issue to see what approach to take.

“There’s a lot of nervousness in the business community,” said one lobbyist who worked unsuccessfully in 1986 to defeat Proposition 65, the anti-toxics initiative. “Maybe there’s not going to be that big a reaction from business. It will depend on the final analysis.”

Mike Dougherty, manager of state government relations for Unocal, agreed. “I would say unless there’s a fairly broad-based interest, some of the (business and industry) people just won’t be there. Nobody wants to go out (on) point on this thing and get labeled as an environmental bad guy. The business community is really doing some soul-searching as to what the right stance is on this initiative,” he said.

Proponents, on the other hand, are upbeat.

“There’s no way we can lose. This is a done deal. We can’t lose unless there’s an earthquake that stops California. Our only job is to qualify this for the November ballot. Once we qualify this, the voters will go for it automatically,” declared Bob Mulholland, campaign manager for the initiative. So far, an estimated 550,000 signatures have been gathered. To qualify, sponsors must collect 375,000 valid signatures.

With so many special interests and political fortunes at stake, there is no doubt that the initiative will become a focal point of the 1990 election.

The volleys have already begun.

Recently, for example, Van de Kamp stood before television cameras outside a cancer ward at San Francisco General Hospital to assail opponents of the ban on cancer-causing pesticides on food.

For their part, pesticide interests commissioned a study which concluded that if Big Green becomes law and 23 widely used pesticides are phased out by 1996, then fruit, vegetable and field crop production would drop by 40%. Food prices would skyrocket by as much as 50%.

The pesticide industry is mounting a “No on Big Green” campaign run by Woodward & McDowell, a veteran campaign and political consulting firm in San Francisco.

At the same time, agribusiness has organized a separate campaign in favor of a rival initiative that would step up pesticide testing but would be far less sweeping.

The rival measure is officially sponsored by Californians for Responsible Food Laws (CAREFUL).

If the CAREFUL initiative gets one more vote than Big Green it would nullify Big Green’s tougher pesticide regulations but not affect other provisions such as those dealing with global warming, offshore oil drilling or forest protection.

Meanwhile, farmers and growers are not alone in trying to qualify rival measures on the ballot.

The secretary of state’s office said there are five timber-related initiatives now in circulation.

One measure sponsored by environmentalists using the name “Forests Forever” would go further than Big Green’s forest provisions by placing severe limits on logging. It would prohibit the cutting of “ancient forests” and require lumber companies to leave at least 40% of the trees in areas they do log.

A rival measure sponsored by the timber industry would ban “clear cutting” of forests. But the measure defines clear cutting in such a way that loggers would be required to leave only four mature “seed trees” per acre, industry spokesmen said.

The timber-industry initiative is designed to cancel out both the Forests Forever measure and the section of the Big Green initiative designed to protect forests.

Meanwhile, the battle of the initiatives has become entwined in the race for governor.

Van de Kamp has chided opponents in both parties for failing to strongly endorse the initiative.

Speaking to a Planning and Conservation League conference last month in Sacramento, Van de Kamp scored U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson--who is sure to win the Republican primary--for not endorsing the initiative.

“Pete Wilson spoke to you earlier today,” Van de Kamp began. “He told you that he’s against oil spills and cancer-causing pesticides, and that he’s for redwoods and clean air and water. He’s got an open mind and a good heart on all these issues. But he just can’t support the Big Green initiative.

“With all due respect,” Van de Kamp declared, “the senator is dead wrong. Twenty years ago it might have been a triumph to have a governor unafraid to call himself an environmentalist. In 1990, that’s the minimum qualification for the job.”

While the initiative is a centerpiece of Van de Kamp’s campaign in November, he also hopes it will give him a boost in his flagging primary campaign against former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. The proposition may provide a “definition point” in the primary, he said. Feinstein said she will not take a position on it until it qualifies for the ballot.

If Van de Kamp loses in the Democratic primary, it could leave Big Green without a sponsor among the November candidates for governor.

Even so, the absence of a gubernatorial candidate stumping for the initiative in November would seem unlikely to affect the fate of Big Green. In fact, a measure that is devoid of gubernatorial politics could have more appeal to some voters.

Even without Van de Kamp, there would be no lack of campaign support for the measure.

A wide range of environmental groups are gearing up for the campaign already, as is Assemblyman Tom Hayden’s grass-roots group, Campaign California. The groups include the Sierra Club California, Pesticide Watch, Natural Resources Defense Council, League of Conservation Voters and the National Toxic Campaign.

In addition, the Hollywood celebrity crowd, led by Jane Fonda and Meryl Streep, is expected to campaign vigorously for the measure.

Hayden’s involvement is potentially controversial. Opponents relish calling the measure the “Hayden-Van de Kamp initiative.” They are counting on people to vote against it once they remember Hayden as a Vietnam War-era radical.

They also note widespread speculation that Hayden would campaign in two years to fill the new state post created by the initiative--state environmental advocate.

The advocate would have authority to monitor and, if necessary, file suit to enforce not only provisions in Big Green, but every environmental and public health law on the books.

Hayden has not disclosed his plans.

Mulholland, campaign director of the measure, said he expects the Big Green backers to spend between $1 million and $3 million on the campaign.

The growers’ campaign has raised about $250,000 and collected about 50,000 signatures, according to campaign director Lee Stitzenberger.

In an attempt to build credibility with voters, he said, contributions from pesticide manufacturers are being refused.

“It’s a decision at this time that our interests are best served (by excluding them),” Stitzenberger said. “Where it’s going to go I don’t know, but at this point they (pesticide manufacturers) are not involved and I don’t foresee them being involved.”

The tactic drew a rebuke from Hayden. “That’s the strategy--have the chemical industry, which is unpopular, hide behind the image of farmers, who are popular,” Hayden said.

Supporters of the agribusiness measure acknowledge that their late start may make it difficult to gather the 600,000 signatures they want by the mid-May deadline to make sure their initiative is on the November ballot.

Proponents, although concerned about the $5 million to $10 million they estimate will be spent to defeat the measure, are undaunted.

“These industry people have as much credibility as insurance companies,” Mulholland charged.

He assailed claims by agribusiness that crop production would drop 40%.

“Those kind of statements hurt them. They remind everybody of the politicians who said if you vote for Proposition 13 (the Jarvis property-tax limitation initiative of 1978) we’re going to shut down everything. We’re going to lay off all the firefighters. Voters know after the election they’ll still be buying tomatoes and they’ll know that maybe, just maybe, they’ll be a little safer,” Mulholland said.

Pesticide manufacturers strongly argue that Americans already enjoy the safest food in the world, and that the risks of adverse health effects from the use of pesticides are minuscule.

But they say convincing an increasingly apprehensive public is another matter.

“Obviously, we haven’t done a good job in communicating to the public the whole issue of risk. I mean, just the word pesticide itself scares people to death, and I don’t blame them,” said Elin Miller, executive director of the Western Agricultural Chemicals Assn.

Miller said Van de Kamp is turning the science of toxicology on its ear. “Van de Kamp is saying that detection equals danger no matter what.

“The basic premise of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison,” she said. “Salt’s a perfect example. Salt is essential to us as part of our body makeup. But a handful of salt can kill a child. That exposure issue is really important.”

In the end, however, scientific defenses may not carry the day.

“In a political debate, science really doesn’t matter much,” Mulholland said. “It’s really how you feel about the issue.”

HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES COMPARE Following is a comparison of the key provisions of competing environmental initiatives proposed for the November ballot. Big Green--also known as the Environmental Quality Act of 1990--is sponsored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and numerous major environmental groups. The growers initiative, known as the Consumer Pesticide Enforcement Act, is sponsored by California growers and food processors. The Forest Forever Initiative is sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council and a North Coast environmental group known as EPIC. The Timber Assn. of California is behind the “Global Warming and Clear Cutting Reduction, Wildlife Protection and Reforestation Act of 1990.”

PESTICIDE REGULATION

Big Green: Overseen by state Department of Health Services.

Growers Initiative: Authority remains in Department of Food and Agriculture, with a new division given authority to set stricter pesticide tolerances for processed foods.

CANCER CAUSING PESTICIDES

BG: Bans all pesticides known to cause cancer in laboratory animals from use on food, even in trace amounts. Ban would take effect within five years, with a three-year extension possible under certain circumstances.

GI: A scientific advisory panel appointed by the governor would review each pesticide to determine if traces in food pose a negligible health risk. No automatic ban.

FOOD IMPORTS

BG: Food produced outside California that contains a residue of any banned pesticide would be barred from sale.

GI: Imported food would be regarded as containing an unlawful residue if that pesticide was banned by California.

RISK STANDARD

BG: Defines “no significant risk” as any risk of cancer which is less than one in a million.

GI: Defines negligible adverse health risk as the level of dietary exposure below that which would present a significantly increased cancer risk.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATE

BG: Creates an elected state Environmental Advocate to enforce provisions of the initiative, as well as other state health and environmental laws.

GI: Declares that the present state Environmental Affairs Secretary shall also serve as environmental advocate. The role would be restricted to implementing the initiative.

PESTICIDE RESIDUE MONITORING

BG: Places emphasis for pesticide monitoring on chemicals that pose the greatest health risk and on imported foods. Raw and processed foods would be monitored.

GI: Requires Department of Health Services to monitor at least twice as much processed food as it samples in 1990. Food and Agriculture Department shall monitor at least twice the number of raw agricultural commodities it sampled in 1989.

ANCIENT FOREST PRESERVATION

Big Green: Proposes a $300-million bond issue to buy ancient redwood stands, where logging would be prohibited forever. Declares a one-year moratorium on logging of all ancient redwood stands of 10 or more acres which have not been previously logged.

Forests Forever: Proposes a $742-million bond issue for purchase of ancient forests, including but not limited to redwoods, to save them from logging. Earmarks purchase of the Headwaters Forest, 3,000 acres of redwoods privately owned by the Pacific Lumber Co. in Humboldt County and being cut at a frantic pace to pay off junk bond debt. Defines ancient forest as stands that contain an average of six or more live trees per acre more than 200 years old, or forests of 10 acres or more where wildlife species that depend on the forest are present.

Timber industry: Proposes a $300-million bond issue for loans and grants to small timber landowners for reforestation and forest resource improvements, and grants to government agencies to rehabilitate publicly-owned forest land, parks, wildlife habitat, tree planting, reforestation and urban forestry projects.

CLEAR CUTTING

BG: Bans clear cutting and requires selective cutting.

FF: Prohibits clear cutting on more than 5 acres. Declares selective cutting as the only allowable harvest method except for Christmas tree, Eucalyptus or fiber plantations. Clear cutting would be allowed where a timber harvesting plan was approved before the initiative, substantial liabilities for timber operations have been incurred in good faith, and where prohibiting it would cause unreasonable additional expense.

Establishes a fund to compensate timber workers for layoffs or job loss caused by the purchase of forest land and to retrain employes for new jobs.

TI: Prohibits clear cutting in old-growth state and private timber land. On forests of other ages, clear cutting would be reduced 50% over a five-year period. After that time, the state Board of Forestry would determine whether to ban all clear cutting. However, if four trees per acre were left standing the operations would not be defined as clear cutting.

Old growth is defined as naturally occurring trees on lands of at least 10 acres, with an average of 10 or more trees per acre that are 200 years old or older.

BOARD OF FORESTRY

BG: Makes no changes in the state Board of Forestry.

FF: Reorganizes the state Board of Forestry. Instead of the governor appointing all nine members, the governor would appoint five members and the lieutenant governor four. Composition would change to reduce timber industry influence and add environmentalists.

TI: No provisions.

The following provisions are found only in the Big Green initiative:

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

Requires California Energy Commission by Jan. 1, 1993, to implement a plan to reduce annual emissions of any gas that contributes to global warming. The plan would also require a net reduction by the year 2000 in carbon dioxide--a major greenhouse gas--of 20% from 1988 levels, and 40% by 2010.

OZONE HOLE

No later than 1993, ozone-destroying chemicals used in air conditioning, refrigeration and other purposes shall be recovered and recycled to “the maximum feasible” extent. Such chemicals could not be manufactured or sold in containers of less than 15 pounds. No later than Jan. 1, 1995, any new car that still uses chlorofluorocarbons in air conditioners would be prohibited from sale in California. Existing air conditioners could be serviced provided the chemicals were obtained through recycling.

TREE PLANTING

Any person who builds a commercial or residential project would be required to plant one tree for each 500 square feet of the project beginning Dec. 1, 1991. Regulations will specify appropriate kinds of trees to maximize air quality benefits.

BAY, ESTUARINE AND OCEAN WATER PROTECTION

Bans new oil and gas drilling in state waters unless the President declares a severe energy supply interruption, and has ordered a distribution of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The governor would have to find that state energy resources would alleviate the crisis. Imposes state requirements for oil spill contingency plans by Jan. 1, 1992, and prohibits any oil and gas drilling in the absence of such a plan. Creates Office of Oil Spill Response in state Fish and Game Department. Creates a $500-million oil spill response fund by taxing each barrel of oil unloaded at state marine terminals.

Prohibits after Jan. 1, 2000, any publicly owned sewage treatment plant from discharging pollutants without at least secondary treatment.

Authorizes the State Lands Commission or California Coastal Commission to issue cease-and-desist orders, if necessary, to stop any project or activity found to be threatening the ocean, bay or estuaries or their resources.