Bill to Put Tough Water Measure on Ballot OKd

SACRAMENTO —  The Legislature, meeting Monday for the first time in a month, passed and sent to Gov. George Deukmejian legislation to a put a measure on the Nov. 8 ballot that would extend tough Proposition 65 drinking water standards to public water companies and government agencies.

The legislation, opposed by local government agencies, passed 50 to 15 in the Assembly and 22 to 0 in the Senate.

It was one of the first votes taken by lawmakers after they reconvened to end their summer recess. Floor sessions in the Assembly and Senate were relatively brief.

The Proposition 65 legislation was the only bill to be passed by both houses Monday.

Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), author of the bill, argued in the Senate that the legislation is needed because “the main polluters of our rivers and streams are public agencies.”

Opponents of Proposition 65, which was approved overwhelmingly by voters in 1986, largely built their campaign around ads that portrayed the measure as “full of exemptions,” including the one provided for government agencies.

Deukmejian, who opposed Proposition 65, so far has not taken a position on the bill. He is still out of town on a two-week trade mission to Asia.

Gubernatorial press spokesman Kevin Brett said that there is “no way to predict what the governor’s action will be when he gets the bill.”

If Deukmejian signs the legislation and the measure is ultimately approved by voters, water agencies and local governments would be forced to comply with provisions of Proposition 65. Like private industry, government agencies would be prohibited from discharging or releasing any chemical known to cause cancer or birth defects into the water supply and would also be required to post warnings if they expose the public to toxic danger.

Sewage Treatment

Federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as public water systems, would be brought under the Proposition 65 regulations. But the measure would exempt sewage treatment facilities.

Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento), who carried the bill in the Assembly, argued that it would “simply allow the voters to decide if this step is in the public interest . . . to see if they want improved water quality.”

An opponent, Assemblywoman Bev Hansen (R-Santa Rosa), replied, “Proposition 65 did not make sense when the voters passed it. It doesn’t make sense now. Why in the heck are we extending it?”

Under the bill, public agencies would not be subject to restrictions on discharges if they are done because of an emergency or if undertaken to protect the public health. The latter provision will allow water agencies to continue to chlorinate the water.