Rivals Differ Markedly on Environment

As Dan Lungren and Gray Davis struggle to distinguish their look-alike positions on crime, education and health care, one difference looms large: the environment.

Few topics so clearly divide the two candidates battling to become California’s next governor.

Davis, the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, believes that tough government regulations are necessary to clean the air and water, protect endangered resources and control coastal development.

Lungren, the Republican attorney general, believes that many environmental laws have gone too far and are hurting California’s economy; he prefers business-friendly incentives and flexibility.

Every major environmental advocacy group has endorsed Davis; oil companies, developers, farm groups, aerospace firms, timber companies and other influential businesses support Lungren.

The political arm of the environmental movement, the California League of Conservation Voters, calls its endorsement of Davis one of the easiest decisions it has ever made: “The biggest threat to California’s environment would be a Gov. Lungren,” said Sam Schuchat, the league’s executive director.

To oil company executives, the decision to become top funders of Lungren’s campaign--$101,000 for Atlantic Richfield Co. and $115,868 for Chevron Corp.--was just as straightforward.

“The basic reason we are supporting Lungren is we felt on a whole he would provide as governor a more favorable business climate than Gray,” said George Ross, manager of external affairs at Los Angeles-based Arco. “Environmental concerns is just one of a number of factors that go into that.”

Despite their clear differences, on the campaign trail Davis and Lungren are both cautious when they address environmental issues. Each advocates balance. Neither wants to be portrayed as a zealot or a pawn.

As lieutenant governor and as a legislator, Davis has been considered an ally of environmental causes, albeit a low-profile one on such top issues as clean air, endangered species and urban growth.

He is best known for his efforts to block new oil exploration off California. He also arranged unprecedented “debt-for-nature” swaps that set aside 40,000 acres of wildlife habitat in Northern and Central California and played a key role in restoring Los Angeles water to Mono Lake.

“We don’t expect [Davis] will be with us all the time,” said Sierra Club lobbyist V. John White, “but we expect we won’t get steam-rolled by special interests.”

By contrast, Lungren has been more conservative than Gov. Pete Wilson on some key environmental issues. During his years in Congress in the 1980s, he voted against the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the current moratorium on offshore oil drilling.

Lungren says concerns over big budgets and big government were behind his votes against those federal laws, and he insists his support of a friendly climate for business does not mean he is against environmental protection.

“I do not believe that if you are pro-environment, you are anti-business and if you are pro-business you are anti-environment. It is a false dichotomy,” Lungren says.

In addition to policy positions, the next governor will have a major impact on the environment through appointments to two powerful state agencies--the Air Resources Board and the Coastal Commission.

The new governor will fill all positions on the Air Resources Board, which is responsible for cleaning up California’s smog. The next four years are critical for the board, since California under federal law must achieve healthful air by 2010. A new state smog plan will be adopted next year, and key regulations aimed at cars, trucks and other pollution sources will be implemented soon.

The next governor will also appoint four of the 12 members of the Coastal Commission.

Davis and Lungren have sharply differing philosophies on issues under the commission’s watch--wetlands protection, public access to beaches and private property rights.

As attorney general, Lungren refused to represent the commission when it tried to halt shipments of nuclear waste in waters off San Francisco and when it sought to force some land owners in the Bolinas area to provide beach access to the public.

Lungren argues that although he has represented the Coastal Commission on hundreds of cases, he has an obligation to refuse to assist a state agency when he believes that a policy conflicts with the law.

Davis, on the other hand, voted twice in the Legislature to restore Coastal Commission funds that had been wiped out by former Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican. As a member of Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr.’s administration, he successfully fought the Carter administration’s attempt to waive local permits and allow the siting of an oil tanker terminal in Long Beach harbor during the Middle Eastern oil embargo.

Environmentalists have been highly critical of Lungren’s record as attorney general. During his tenure, his office cut prosecutions in environmental cases by 95% compared with his predecessor, John Van De Kamp, according to Clifford Rechtschaffen, an associate professor at Golden Gate University School of Law who was a deputy attorney general under both administrations.

By contrast, many farmers, builders and other business leaders are pleased with Lungren’s attempts as attorney general to put limits on the Endangered Species Act to protect property rights.

Lungren says he is tough when warranted, citing his $43.8-million settlement in July with Unocal, believed to be the largest state environmental penalty in history. Unocal spilled 8 million to 12 million gallons of petroleum over the past four decades at its Guadalupe field north of Santa Barbara.

Recently, however, the Surfer’s Environmental Alliance said it would challenge the legality of the settlement. Environmentalists say the agreement would not begin to cover the estimated $500 million in damages the spill caused and that it effectively let Unocal off the hook for cleaning up the effects.

One powerful industry, however, has shown a deep distrust of Lungren because of a lawsuit he filed in April over protecting the public from exposure to diesel exhaust.

Lungren joined an environmental group in suing four supermarket chains for failing to warn people who live near their trucking centers that they are exposed to carcinogenic diesel fumes. But in private meetings with executives from the California Trucking Assn. attended by a Times reporter, Lungren’s special assistant, Wayne Smith, assured them that Lungren will not harm the industry.

Smith told the trucking executives that Lungren “almost had no choice but to intervene” on behalf of environmentalists under Proposition 65, the state’s anti-toxics law, and that the case will be settled and environmentalists “are probably going to accuse us of selling out.”

Still, Lungren’s attempts to win over the trucking industry failed. Some company executives have contributed to Davis instead.

“Davis has made more of an effort to reach out to the industry,” said trucking association spokesman Beau Biller. “His message was a small-business message, which resonated.”

Profiles of Gray Davis and Dan Lungren, their positions on key issues, and video clips from their debates are available on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/elect98

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Protecting the Environment

Gubernatorial candidates Gray Davis and Dan Lungren have sharp disagreements on major environmental issues.

Clean Air

DAVIS: Supports continuing the state’s requirement that automakers ensure that 10% of the cars they sell by 2003 are zero-emission, battery-powered vehicles.

LUNGREN: Would have the California Air Resources Board repeal the zero-emission vehicle mandate.

****

Offshore Oil Drilling

DAVIS: Has worked for years to ban new drilling permanently. Now says he also would fight to prevent companies from using 40 existing, undeveloped leases.

LUNGREN: As a congressman from Long Beach, he was the lone California member of Congress to oppose a permanent moratorium on new offshore oil drilling. He now supports the existing 10-year ban adopted by the Clinton administration.

****

Toxics

DAVIS: Supports legislation requiring state officials to ensure that standards for toxic air pollutants protect children, not just adults.

LUNGREN: Calls a separate standard for children burdensome, unscientific and unnecessary. The risk to children is already factored into existing rules, he argues.