EPA Plan for State Drawn by Wilson : Government: The agency would regulate pesticides and waste and assess health hazards. Environmentalists term the plan weak. Agriculture fears stiffer controls.

Gov. Pete Wilson unveiled his plan Wednesday for the creation of a California Environmental Protection Agency, saying it would lead to better protection of the environment by consolidating a variety of functions now scattered among different departments.

Responding to longtime complaints from environmentalists, Wilson’s proposal would remove pesticide regulation from the California Department of Food and Agriculture and place it in the new agency.

However, the Republican governor said he did not expect his reorganization plan to toughen or weaken the regulation of pesticides in California. Furthermore, he said, his proposal would not affect decisions such as the use of malathion in urban areas to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly.

“Through Cal-EPA we will have a single point of accountability for all of the state’s environmental programs,” Wilson told reporters. “We intend to enforce vigorously what will be high standards--standards based upon honest, scientific assessment.”

Wilson’s proposal drew fire from environmentalists, who said the plan did not do enough to protect the environment, and from agricultural interests, who--despite Wilson’s assurances--fear the reorganization could mean tougher pesticide regulations.

Environmentalists and health experts also criticized the proposal for reducing the autonomy of the state scientists who assess health risks and set the precise standards officials use in regulating a wide range of hazardous chemicals. The scientists, who work in the Department of Health Services, now have relative independence from officials who regulate pesticides and other substances.

“I think there are some glitches with the proposal Wilson is going to need to correct in order to make it workable,” said Mike Paparian, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club.

At a press conference in a park by the Sacramento River, Wilson acknowledged that his proposal does not call for new policies to protect the environment.

Instead, he said, it would consolidate functions that are now carried out by departments and boards within three separate agencies.

The California Environmental Protection Agency would include:

* A new Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which would oversee risk assessment and the implementation of Proposition 65, the 1986 anti-toxic chemicals initiative.

* A Department of Toxic Substances Control, which would handle responsibility for the regulation and cleanup of hazardous waste.

* The Department of Pesticide Regulation, which would include the existing pesticide regulation program moved “intact” from the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

* Three influential environmental boards--the Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Integrated Waste Management Board--with board members and policy remaining unchanged.

Wilson’s reorganization plan now goes to the state’s watchdog Little Hoover Commission, which will have 30 days to recommend changes. After that, the governor will submit the plan--with or without revisions--to the Legislature, which will have 60 days to consider it but will have no power to amend it. If neither house rejects the plan during that time, the reorganization will become law.

For years, environmentalists have maintained that the Department of Food and Agriculture has a fundamental conflict because it regulates pesticides at the same time it is responsible for promoting agriculture.

During his campaign for governor last year, Wilson opposed the sweeping “Big Green” environmental initiative and pledged instead to create a California Environmental Protection Agency.

On Wednesday, Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), a key sponsor of the unsuccessful initiative, complimented Wilson for his effort but urged the governor to modify his proposals for handling the regulation of pesticides.

“I praise Pete Wilson for being the governor to establish the state’s first environmental protection agency and believe the proposed structure is a laudable start,” Hayden said in a statement issued by his office.

Some legislators, however, suggested the reorganization plan could have trouble in the Legislature--much like former Gov. George Deukmejian’s two failed attempts to reorganize the state’s toxics control program.

“A plan that simply maintains the status quo for pesticides with only a name change is unacceptable,” said Senate Toxics Committee Chairman Art Torres (D-Los Angeles).

When the time comes to vote on the plan, environmental opponents in the Legislature may end up forming an odd alliance with farm representatives who believe the proposal goes too far.

Assembly Agriculture Committee Chairman Rusty Areias (D-Los Banos) detailed a series of reservations about the plan in a letter to James Strock, whom the governor has already appointed to head the new agency.

“You and the governor have set for yourselves a very difficult assignment,” Areias wrote, “one that is fraught with the potential for doing more harm than good.”

But Wilson told reporters he hoped to persuade farmers their concern was unwarranted. Even with the changes he proposes, Wilson said, pesticide regulation will be carried out just as it has been under the Department of Food and Agriculture.

“I’m in the position of being able to guarantee that that will be the future,” the governor said.

Wilson said the value of the reorganization is that the decision-making process would be improved--even if the outcome is not much different. As an example, he cited the controversial use of malathion last year in Los Angeles and Orange counties. While the final decision to spray the pesticide ultimately would be the governor’s, he could turn to his new environmental agency to advise him on the risk.

“I’m not sure the outcome would have been different,” Wilson said.

Wilson, who has often sided with environmentalists in the past, sought to rally support for his proposal from business interests by stressing that they would benefit from a healthy environment.

“There are a number of people who think environmental quality and economic health are mutually exclusive,” the governor said. “On the contrary, they are interdependent. A degraded environment will quickly cost California jobs.”