Voting environmentally

Five voter initiatives appearing on the November state ballot have the potential to alter the use and treatment of California’s natural resources and environment. Together, they will affect the state’s air and water quality, wildlife, marine life, agriculture, and forests.

Two of the initiatives are concerned primarily with the amount and types of pesticides used in agriculture and the threat they pose to human health; two others focus on the issues surrounding the harvest of timber; the fifth would end the use of gill nets in some unprotected coastal waters in southern California.

Pesticide initiatives

Proposition 128, titled the “Environmental Protection Act of 1990,” and Proposition 135, titled the “Consumer Pesticide Enforcement Act for Food, Water, and Worker Safety,” both address the use of pesticides in agriculture. Proposition 128 also covers a wide range of pollutants from other sources.

If approved by voters, Proposition 128, nicknamed “Big Green,” would eliminate by 1996 any pesticides known to cause cancer, and provide for protection of agricultural workers from overexposure to chemicals. It would create an elected office of State Environmental Advocate, with a budget of $40 million to research alternative pest controls and to improve testing methods. In keeping with the objective of reducing environmental pollutants, Big Green would also eliminate the use of CFCs by 1997, establish stricter clean water standards, prevent any new offshore oil drilling in California waters (unless necessary for a national emergency), and provide money from oil delivery fees for an intensive oil spill clean-up program. To reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere, Proposition 128 would require a 40 percent reduction of emissions from automobiles and other sources by the year 2010, require that one tree be planted for every 500 square feet of new construction, and provide $200 million for the state to purchase old-growth forests. Proposition 128 is supported by Bay Area Action, the California League of Conservation Voters, CalPIRG, Campaign California, the National Toxics Campaign, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Watch, the Sierra Club, and many others.

Proposition 135, if approved, would increase the amount of testing for harmful pesticides present in food, provide authority for a state appointed Secretary of Environmental Affairs to coordinate with state agencies, design a worker compensation program, and establish an advisory committee to recommend new analytical testing methods. It is supported by, among others, the Agriculture Council of California, the California Farm Bureau, and the Western Farmers Association.

Arguments against Prop. 135 are based on the fact that it will transfer some costs from industry to the California General State Fund, and that it will duplicate and actually weaken portions of existing law. For example, fees that are already paid by industry for the regulation of pesticides will be canceled and the cost burden will be shifted to the state. The increase in testing for harmful pesticides is already provided for by existing law. Current law also requires pesticide registrants to develop and submit new methods of testing for pesticide residues, but under Proposition 135 this is not required.

Opponents of Prop. 128 (“Big Green”) maintain that it is too extreme and would cost too much. They warn that to phase out pesticides too quickly with no adequate replacement would reduce the quantity, lower the quality, and raise the prices of food. They claim the plan to reduce emissions from automobiles would cause an increase in gas prices and that the Environmental Advocate would have too much power.

Proponents of 128 respond that it will ensure a safer food supply and that there are viable alternatives to dangerous pesticides. It further stipulates that when a pesticide has no good replacement and its elimination would result in severe economic hardship, users can file for an extension of the phase-out period. A final advantage over Prop. 135 is that the Environmental Advocate will exist to enforce environmental law and oversee the implementation of regulations. Propositions 128 and 135 are not compatible. If they both get voter approval, Prop. 135 will override Big Green. It is therefore important that supporters of Proposition 128 also vote against Proposition 135.

Forestry initiatives

The two initiatives that address the fate of California’s forests are Proposition 130, titled the “Ancient Forest and Wildlife Protection Initiative of 1990,” and Proposition 138, titled the “Global Warming and Clear Cutting Reduction, Wildlife Protection and Reforestation Act of 1990.”

Proposition 130 is sponsored by a coalition of conservation organizations called Forests Forever. If approved by voters, 130 would provide $710 million in bond money to purchase old-growth forests, including the 3,000-acre Headwaters Forest — site of the largest unprotected ancient redwoods. It would ban clearcutting (which it defines as the removal of over 60 percent of timber by volume) and would create a comprehensive program, to be implemented over the next 150 years, for sustainable yield forestry.

Proposition 130 would reform the State Board of Forestry to achieve a better balance between industry and environmental representation. It would prohibit the sale for export of unprocessed or minimally processed logs from the forests of California, and would encourage the Federal government to enact a similar law for the entire United States. The initiative also would provide $32 million for a program to compensate and retrain timber workers who might be displaced by implementation of this proposition. Proposition 130 is endorsed by many organizations, including the Ancient Forest Defense Fund, chapters of the Audubon Society, Bay Area Action, the California Democratic Council, CalPIRG, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Island Action Group, Friends of the Earth, the Native Forest Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Peninsula ReLeaf, the Planning and Conservation League, the Sierra Club, the United Anglers of California, and many watershed protection groups.

Proposition 138, known as the New Forestry Initiative, would ban clearcutting (which it defines as the cutting and removal of all timber from an area) in ancient redwood forests and, over the next five years, reduce clearcutting by 50 percent in other areas. It would authorize $300 million in bond money for tree planting in urban and park areas, require the state to approve plans for management of timber and wildlife on privately owned forests of 5,000 acres or more, and mandate studies of wildlife resources on timberland. Contributors to the campaign for Proposition 138 include Georgia Pacific, Louisiana Pacific Corp., Pacific Lumber Company, Sierra Pacific Industries, and the Timber Association of California.

Opponents of Proposition 138 hold that there is no money provided for old-growth acquisition and that the $300 million for reforestation will be provided only upon state legislative approval. The ban on clearcutting in Prop. 138, using the definition of the timber industry, can mean the removal of all but one tree per acre. Several provisions, including task force studies of wildlife and timberland issues and specific management of wildlife, are reworded versions of existing laws.

Opponents of Prop. 130 (the Forests Forever initiative) say that the process of choosing individual trees with the lowest potential impact on the surrounding area, is too inefficient and costly. They say Proposition 130 would put 75,000 timber workers out of work, devastate the economy of northern California, and cost the taxpayers as much as 1.3 billion dollars.

Prop. 130 supporters point out that harvesting trees at the present rate will exhaust the supply and will eventually devastate the economy of areas dependent on the timber industry. Therefore, implementation of a sustainable yield program is the. only way to ensure a lasting supply of trees for harvest. Further, fees would be paid by the industry to cover the cost of reviewing timber harvesting plans.

Proposition 138 would, if passed, override voter approval of Prop. 130 (Forests Forever). Supporters of 130 should also vote no on 138.

Gill net initiative

Proposition 132, if passed, would eliminate by 1994 the use of gill nets for fishing within three miles off the coast of California from Point Conception to the Mexican border. It would also make permanent a similar temporary ban along the central and northern coast of the state, and would require the California Dept. of Fish and Game to establish four additional ocean areas for marine research.

Gill nets are a mono-filament mesh designed to trap fish by the gills. Much of a catch (estimates range from 20% to 70%) can be non-targeted marine animals that have no commercial value. These animals, critically wounded or dead, are then returned to the ocean. This is potentially devastating to some species.

To learn more about these initiatives, call the BAA office for phone numbers of the sponsor groups. A summary and complete text of each initiative, including arguments for and against them, will be sent from the State Department of Elections to all registered voters before the election. Also, contact the California League of Conservation Voters (see page 6) for an in-depth environmental evaluation of the ballot.

——

Published in Action, vol 1, no 2 · Sep–Oct 1990