Environmental Laws Under Siege : Legislature: More conservative body targets water standards, rare species and ‘green’ labels on products. However, major parts of the effort have stalled.

As lawmakers stagger toward adjournment, Republicans and a few moderate Democrats are taking time to roll back some of California’s tough environmental laws.

Many of the targeted environmental laws were placed on the books in the 1980s or early ‘90s, and were attempts to protect rare species, improve drinking water quality, and let consumers more accurately identify “green” products.

But with the Legislature now more conservative, a new wave of bills backed by most Republicans and a few moderate Democrats is aimed at protecting private property rights, improving California’s economy, and relieving businesses of some environmental restrictions.

“We’re starting to make progress,” said Allan Zaremberg, lobbyist for the state Chamber of Commerce, one of the most active Sacramento groups involved in the rollback of environmental laws. “We obviously haven’t accomplished all our goals. On the other hand, a few years ago, we would have been happy to defeat another [environmental] obligation.”

Gov. Pete Wilson and some Republican lawmakers still hope that there is time to fashion a bill to make sweeping changes to the California Environmental Quality Act and Endangered Species Act. Changes to both were part of Wilson’s ambitious 1995 legislative agenda.

As of Friday, however, the effort had stalled. With the Legislature heading into its final week and still racked by partisan bickering, efforts to dramatically alter those two laws most likely will be left undone until lawmakers return in January.

Nonetheless, several less drastic measures have won legislative approval or are nearing final passage:

* A bill promoted by agriculture and chemical manufacturers permitting continued use of methyl bromide, a potent fumigant and pesticide used extensively on strawberry, cherry and nut crops. Methyl bromide has been identified as a substance that depletes the ozone. The Assembly approved the bill last week, and returned it to the Senate.

* A bill aimed at repealing part of a 1990 initiative that banned mountain lion hunting in California. If placed on the ballot in March and approved by voters, the measure would permit fish and game authorities to limit the cougar population by once again allowing mountain lion hunting. The Senate has approved the bill, and a final Assembly vote is expected this week.

* A measure by Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno) seeks to remove criminal penalties for farmers who accidentally kill animals protected by the Endangered Species Act while working their fields. Although farm groups and some environmentalists support the measure, conservative Assembly Republicans are trying to stop it temporarily, hoping to gain leverage for a broader assault on the Endangered Species Act.

* A bill that alters state-imposed advertising standards for “green” labeling. Backed by the Assn. of National Advertisers and various industry groups, the bill won final legislative approval last week and is on Wilson’s desk.

If, as expected, Wilson signs it, the bill would replace a 1990 state law that created tough “green” labeling standards in California and exchange the state standards for looser Federal Trade Commission requirements.

Under the 1990 state standards, manufacturers cannot proclaim on their labels that a product contains recycled material unless at least 10% of it was once used by consumers.

The new bill, SB 426 by state Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Carnelian Bay), would remove the requirement that “recycled” products contain material once used by consumers, such as plastic, glass or paper. Instead, recycled material could include byproducts of the manufacturing process that never reach consumers’ hands.

Leslie called the state standards arbitrary, and noted that under his bill, many more manufacturers would be able to use “green” labeling, an increasingly strong selling point with consumers.

Leslie’s bill also would strike down the state requirement that a product can be labeled as “biodegradable” only if it degrades naturally within one year. Under Leslie’s measure, the term biodegradable would be far more open-ended.

“Now it’s just the truth, instead of this artificial standard that makes no sense,” Leslie said.

As the more conservative Legislature seeks to unwind some of California’s environmental regulations, no lawmaker is taking more hits than Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), a Stanford law professor and veteran chairman of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

This session, two bills take aim at statutes that Sher sponsored, including the “green” labeling law and the state’s Safe Drinking Water Act.

“This is the first wave,” Sher said, predicting that more bills he views as anti-environment will come up next year. “This is one of the main changes that last November’s election wrought, and we’re going to see a continuous effort to undo good bills that were put on the books in the 1980s.”

In the waning days of the legislative session, some of the most aggressive lobbying is focused on legislation to weaken a Sher-sponsored section of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Assembly approved the measure last week and sent it to the Senate.

A coalition that includes the state Chamber of Commerce, the oil industry, chemical companies and public water agencies has funded a high-priced public relations and lobbying campaign for the bill, SB 1307, by Sen. Charles Calderon (D-Whittier).

Opponents of the bill, led by the California Public Interest Research Group and the Sierra Club, complained to the Fair Political Practices Commission about the coalition’s lobby effort.

The Drinking Water Act--signed into law by Deukmejian--sets maximum levels for 21 poisonous elements and chemicals such as arsenic, aluminum, dioxin, and benzene in drinking water. That portion remains intact.

What is under attack is a separate requirement that California embark on a research project to develop higher public health goals for levels of cancer- and birth-defect-causing contaminants.

Agencies that supply water exceeding the goals would have to clean it up or file annual reports explaining why they could not meet the goals.

At the time the measure was signed into law, Deukmejian’s Department of Finance estimated the statewide cost of compliance at roughly $15 million. But backers of Calderon’s bill generated a thick report showing that the cost of attaining as-yet-undeveloped drinking water standards would be in the billions--an estimate Sher says is wildly inflated.

“Those goals were a terrible mistake,” said Assemblyman Bernie Richter (R-Chico), who carried Calderon’s bill in the Assembly. “They did not improve health and safety, and imposed a $6-billion cost for no reason. Spending money to do nothing, that’s madness.”

Calderon’s bill seeks to remove the requirement that the higher health standards be drafted. As a result, Sher says, the public will be left uninformed about the levels of the contaminants in their water.

“The people who put these toxic chemicals in the drinking water won’t have that out in the public domain,” Sher said. “The users won’t know about it, and that will decrease the pressure on them to clean up their messes.”

For all the furious lobbying, the measure’s impact on water quality remains unclear. The state Department of Health Services is neutral on Calderon’s bill.

But Harvey Collins, head of the agency’s Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, said the higher state standards that Calderon’s bill seeks to repeal “will result in a lot of reports being written,” but provide “questionable benefit” to the public.