3 Environment Issues Lose; Prop. 140 Ahead

In a stunning defeat for environmentalists, voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 128, the sweeping “Big Green” initiative that sought to rid the state of cancer-causing pesticides and cure a variety of other environmental ills.

Backers of the initiative conceded defeat shortly after 11 p.m., charging that the opposition campaign financed largely by chemical and oil companies had succeeded in confusing the voters.

“Let us regard this as a strange mandate--not a rejection of the environment,” Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) told a forlorn crowd of several hundred at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. “This is a lesson for us to ponder very deeply. . . . Let it be understood that people want even more serious and fundamental change than they think they are getting from politicians or the initiative process.”

In other proposition races, voters were approving Proposition 140, a measure that would severely limit the terms of state elected officials to as little as six years for Assembly members. But a second, less stringent term-limiting measure, Proposition 131, was defeated. Among other top ballot measures, Proposition 134, which would have slapped substantial new taxes on alcoholic beverages, was going down to defeat as well. Proposition 126, an alcohol taxation measure supported by the liquor industry, also was being rejected. Proposition 136, the “ballot virus” that could kill off at least three other measures on the same ballot, was too close to call.

The rejection of Proposition 128 was a major blow to environmentalists and Democratic politicians who backed the measure. Just four months ago, supporters of the initiative predicted that it was a sure winner, given the high level of public concern over the environment.

Opponents of Proposition 128, who branded the measure “the Hayden Initiative,” were jubilant over their victory. California Farm Bureau President Bob Vice, a leading opponent, said voters saw through the environmentalist campaign led by Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) and featuring numerous Hollywood celebrities.

“(The vote) says people are a little more perceptive than the actors and actresses and Tom Hayden thought,” Vice said. “The proposition was poorly written.”

But even opponents of the measure said the vote should not be construed as a lack of public concern over such issues as global warming, depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer and cancer-causing chemicals in food.

“One message that should not be drawn is that this is a vote against the environment,” said Richard S. Woodward, director of the No on 128 campaign. “Their initiative tried to do too much. It wouldn’t have done what it said it would do.”

Like Big Green, two counter-initiatives sponsored by the agriculture and timber industries, Propositions 135 and 138, were headed for overwhelming defeat.

But Proposition 132, a modest environmental measure that would ban the use of gill nets off the California coast, was leading.

Proposition 130, the “Forests Forever” measure sponsored by environmentalists to halt clear-cutting of forests and save California’s ancient redwoods, trailed in early returns but gained as more votes were tallied and was too close to call.

Proposition 141, placed on the ballot by the Legislature to extend the anti-toxic materials provisions of Proposition 65 to public agencies, was narrowly trailing.

In the battle over the four major initiatives affecting the environment, industry groups and environmentalists spent a total of $40 million to sway the electorate.

Proposition 128, designed to solve a variety of problems, was widely watched across the nation as a barometer of the public’s concern over the environment.

The wide-ranging measure called for a ban on pesticides that cause cancer or birth defects, a phase-out of chemicals that deplete the Earth’s protective ozone layer and a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. It also sought to preserve ancient redwood forests, tax oil companies to pay for oil spill cleanups, prohibit the release of toxic chemicals into coastal waters and establish the elected position of environmental advocate.

Proposition 128 was backed by Hayden, the Sierra Club and a variety of other environmental groups, politicians and Hollywood celebrities.

In their $4.7-million campaign, supporters of the measure relied heavily on emotional appeals linking cancer to pesticide use. Their television commercials featured Hollywood stars and often portrayed children as bearing the brunt of pollution.

Opponents repeatedly attacked Proposition 128 as too costly and complex. The opposition campaign warned that the measure would result in higher gasoline and food prices and soaring electrical rates.

To counter the measure’s restrictions on pesticides, the agricultural industry sponsored Proposition 135.

In addition to invalidating Big Green’s pesticide provisions, Proposition 135 called for $25 million to be spent on research into pesticide alternatives. But the agricultural industry’s measure also left regulatory authority for pesticides in the hands of state officials who often have sided with agriculture interests.

Altogether, the opponents of Big Green spent $17 million in their effort to defeat the proposition and win passage of Proposition 135.

Voters also were called on to resolve a battle of conflicting initiatives affecting the state’s timber industry.

Proposition 130 was sponsored by environmentalists to protect California forests by banning clear-cutting and substantially reducing the timber harvest. It also authorized $742 million in bonds to acquire ancient redwood forests.

Supporters of Proposition 130, including wealthy investment manager Harold Arbit, the Sierra Club and more than 200 other environmental groups, spent $7 million to persuade voters that the measure was necessary to halt the over-cutting of California’s forests and preserve what remains of the ancient redwoods. Arbit contributed more than $5 million of his own money to promote the measure.

The timber industry sought to negate Proposition 130 by winning passage of Proposition 138, which sought to allow logging firms to harvest with less government intervention. The timber industry measure contained its own clear-cutting ban, but included loopholes permitting loggers to take every tree in a given area.

In an $11-million campaign that left many voters confused, the timber industry portrayed Proposition 138 as an environmental measure that would preserve the state’s redwoods.

Proposition 132 was placed on the ballot by Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress) with the support of recreational fishermen and environmentalists who have been attempting for years to outlaw gill nets.

The nets, called “walls of death” by their foes, drift through the water and indiscriminately catch a wide variety of species, including sea mammals and birds. Commercial fishermen opposed the ban, arguing it would restrict their ability to fish in state waters and drive up the price of fish for consumers.

Unlike the high-stakes campaign four years ago when voters approved Proposition 65, there was little public debate this year over Proposition 141, the measure to broaden the 1986 toxic chemical law to include state and local governments.

Proposition 141 would prohibit public agencies from discharging toxic chemicals into drinking water and would require that they warn the public about exposure to chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. Proposition 65 imposes those restrictions only on businesses that employ 10 or more people.