County Can Lay Claim to ‘Filthy 3’

The voters of Orange County can claim a very special distinction as we celebrate Earth Day, 1990.

Several months ago, the California League of Conservation Voters published the results of a study in which California state legislators were ranked on the basis of their votes on league-supported environmental bills, the stands they took in environmental committees, and the number and nature of what the league considers anti-conservation bills they authored.

The legislators with the five lowest scores statewide were labeled “The Filthy Five,” and voters were urged by the league to turn them out of office.

Three of those legislators--Assemblymen Dennis Brown (R-Los Alamitos), Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach) and Nolan Frizzelle (R-Huntington Beach)--were elected by Orange County voters, giving us the undisputed anti-environment championship in the state of California.

The two others listed were state senators John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) and Don Rogers (R-Bakersfield).

Now admittedly, the League of Conservation Voters--which claims 30,000 members in the “largest and oldest state political action committee for the environment in the nation”--is deeply biased. But it wears its bias on its sleeve--and in its name--as it works, mostly with volunteers, throughout the state to elect what its Southern California director, Paul Koretz, calls “environmentally concerned candidates.”

Its bills of particulars against Brown, Ferguson and Frizzelle are long and detailed. Here are a few of the high spots:

* As a member of the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee, Frizzelle has voted against increasing air pollution penalties, holding oil companies liable for oil spills, preventing the pesticide contamination of drinking water, protecting school children from toxic hazards and cleaning up the state’s worst toxic hot spots.

* While voting against increased air pollution penalties, oil company liability for spills and the prevention of pesticide contamination, Ferguson has raised the hackles of the league, especially for the bills he has introduced--all of which died in committee.

One bill would have made public access to the coastal zone more difficult by exempting new construction from access requirements under certain conditions. Another would have nullified a number of environmental and growth-control initiatives enacted by citizens of cities and counties throughout the state. A third would have prevented localities from enacting sewer hook-up moratoriums, an important local method of growth control.

* Brown’s environmental sins, according to the league, are too numerous to attempt to list here. Brown pulled the lowest rating in the state and was referred to by a league spokesman as “the most environmentally destructive legislator in the Capitol.” His selection has perhaps become moot since he recently announced he was retiring from politics to become a Christian lay minister.

He spends most of his time these days studying fundamentalist theology that invokes against all sorts of alleged sins, from homosexuality to dirty jokes. Apparently Brown doesn’t regard destruction of the environment as a sin, but I phoned to ask anyhow.

Brown--a former stockbroker and head of the Los Angeles County chapter of the arch-conservative Young Americans for Freedom--didn’t return my calls. He was, however, interviewed by The Times two weeks ago about his change of careers and said at that time that he was disillusioned with what he called a “rotten” governmental system that falls short of representing the will of the people. This would suggest that he regards his votes against virtually all environmental legislation as representing “the will of the people.”

Ferguson also declined to answer my phone calls, but Frizzelle talked with me at some length, even though he said he regarded the whole subject of the league study as “boring.”

“It means nothing to me because the bills they selected to make this study are those supported by environmental extremists,” he said.

“The bills used as a criterion in this study are chosen selectively to put Republicans in a bad light. You will note that Democrats are at the top of these rankings and Republicans at the bottom. The bills are selected for that purpose in spite of the fact that many Republicans are very concerned about environmental issues.

“I believe in a lot of significant environmental actions that the environmental extremists don’t like. I like the idea of hydropower, for example, which they dislike because it might disrupt white-water rafting. And I don’t believe in giving more and more land to the federal government when we don’t have enough tax-bearing land as it is. Our resources need to be conserved, but they should also be used intelligently as vital needs require.”

Frizzelle said he had received no heat as a result of his appointment to “The Filthy Five.” “People refer to it humorously from time to time, but I’ve had no indication from my constituents that they are upset about it. I look at what is reasonable or not in a bill, so I don’t have any problem with my voting record, and I don’t think my constituents do either. The people who make up these lists are not only extremists but anti-business. They want to drive business out of the state.”

I ran this by the league’s Paul Koretz. He said: “Sure the Democrats show up better in these rankings because, in general, they are much more environmentally involved. But this is true only because it is an honest survey. The Republicans with good environmental records show up with good ratings. State Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia), for example, is a conservative Republican with a 95% rating--one of the best in the state.

“Our membership is politically moderate, with a mix of Democrats and Republicans. But there is a big gap between the environmental feelings of most Republicans in California and the majority of the party’s legislators in Sacramento. We select bills for our study on the basis of their significance to the environment, not to make one group or another look bad. That’s just sour grapes.”

So it comes back, as it always does, to the voters. If they find it comfortable to be represented by “The Filthy Five,” they will say so. If they don’t. . . .