00:00:01 Water is our single most important resource.

00:00:06 Essential to build cities.

00:00:10 Essential to grow food.

00:00:13 Essential for life itself.

00:00:18 So a law that promises to protect the purity of our drinking water sounds like a great idea.

00:00:26 Nevertheless, a growing chorus of concern over Proposition 65 can be heard throughout the state.

00:00:33 It's a long initiative, but it proposes a very simple, very simplistic solution to an issue which is not a simple one.

00:00:45 I think this initiative is going to be disastrous for California agriculture.

00:00:50 One of my major concerns with the initiative is that it's quite imprecise.

00:00:57 It will be toxic to the California economy without providing any significant environmental protection whatever.

00:01:05 One of the most serious flaws in Proposition 65 is its wholesale exemption of all government agencies, such as this municipal wastewater plant,

00:01:23 which last year deliberately dumped 700 million gallons of raw sewage into the Russian River, a recreational resource for the entire area.

00:01:32 Proposition 65 offers no help for the thousands of downstream residents whose water supply periodically is polluted, since all government operated sewage plants are exempted.

00:01:43 Likewise, almost all garbage dumps would be excluded from Prop 65 regulations.

00:01:49 Toxic waste from publicly owned geothermal wells would be ignored by the initiative, but private plants would be regulated.

00:01:58 Michelle Korash is an environmental attorney whose experience as general counsel for the EPA especially qualifies her to comment on this gaping hole in Proposition 65.

00:02:10 When you look at the exemptions in this initiative, it's hard not to ask yourself, what's this initiative really about?

00:02:16 Is it about health?

00:02:18 The exemption suggests that this initiative is not really about protecting health, because the biggest polluters in the state of California are exempted from the initiative.

00:02:26 Cities and counties are exempted.

00:02:28 Henry Voss, president of the California Farm Bureau, sees a fundamental unfairness in the way that Prop 65 applies to agriculture.

00:02:37 I think the thing that really disturbs those in agriculture are the double standards that are set in many cases by this particular initiative.

00:02:48 The chemicals that we would find illegal to use in California agriculture are legal to be used by backyard gardeners in many cases,

00:02:57 as well as by all of the municipalities and state local governments taking care of parks, the roadways, the many uses that they presently use,

00:03:07 many of the same chemicals that we use in agriculture.

00:03:10 Actually, almost as many pesticides are used by municipalities and backyard gardeners as by farmers.

00:03:17 Yet these extensive uses of toxic chemicals are completely exempted by the provisions of the toxics initiative.

00:03:25 Military bases also are specifically excluded from any liability under Prop 65, even though many pollution problems have been created by these installations.

00:03:36 For example, chemicals from McClellan Airfield's toxic dumps have leached into the groundwater which supplies nearby private wells.

00:03:45 Contamination was so severe that the base has had to supply bottled water to some homes and to finance installation of city water lines.

00:03:54 Again, the initiative offers no remedy for any kind of drinking water pollution or toxic exposure by federal agencies or installations.

00:04:04 Public water companies also would be exempted, and they would be allowed to continue to chlorinate drinking water.

00:04:11 But when that same chlorinated water is wholesale to a private water system, it could become illegal for the private company to distribute the water to its customers.

00:04:21 A homeowner would be free to use this chlorinated water on his lawn, but if a business firm turned on its sprinklers, it could be a violation of the initiative.

00:04:32 County facilities such as this maintenance yard, where a major diesel oil spill contaminated groundwater, also would be untouched by the provisions of the initiative.

00:04:42 Last year, a study by Citizens for a Better Environment, a very prominent environmental group in San Francisco, did a study of the San Francisco Bay, for example.

00:04:52 And it concluded that in terms of toxins, cities and counties were disposing of five times the number of toxins into the bay, as businesses were.

00:05:03 Yet, those cities and counties are exempted under the initiative.

00:05:07 Even this partial list of pollution-prone public facilities exempted by the initiative demonstrates its ineffectiveness as environmental law.

00:05:16 When you look at those exemptions, it's very hard to conclude that this is really an initiative whose purpose is to protect health.

00:05:24 With 20 years' experience as staff toxicologist with the California Department of Health Services, Alice Ottoboni feels that the appeal of a measure such as Proposition 65 is based on popular misconceptions.

00:05:38 Another misconception that people have is that if a chemical is harmful in any amount, it's harmful in every amount.

00:05:46 And again, nothing could be further from the truth.

00:05:49 Where the chemicals do not pose a risk, where they have benefits to offer, we allow them to be used.

00:05:56 This initiative doesn't make those distinctions. It just takes one answer and applies it across the board.

00:06:04 The most important factor in whether or not a chemical is harmful is what is known as the dose-time relationship.

00:06:11 How much are you exposed and how often are you exposed?

00:06:16 I think a perfect example of this effect of dose in whether or not a chemical is harmful is with vitamin D.

00:06:27 Vitamin D is a very highly toxic chemical.

00:06:32 One gram of vitamin D in pure form is capable of killing an average adult human.

00:06:39 But yet every one of us requires approximately 10 micrograms every day.

00:06:49 We take that list of chemicals and as to all of them we say, no discharge, no emissions, which translates to no use.

00:07:02 The zero discharge standard which Proposition 65 would impose flies in the face of a scientific consensus

00:07:09 which recognizes that there are practical safe levels for many carcinogens.

00:07:14 A perfect example of this say is benzopyrene.

00:07:18 Benzopyrene is a naturally occurring carcinogen to which we are all exposed in relatively large levels.

00:07:30 Compared to other carcinogens that are in our environment.

00:07:34 Benzopyrene is produced by the burning of organic matter.

00:07:39 It is produced, for example, when you charcoal broil a steak.

00:07:43 A charcoal broil steak contains about 10 micrograms.

00:07:48 So we all are exposed to relatively large amounts of this naturally occurring carcinogen, benzopyrene.

00:07:56 And yet there is no evidence that benzopyrene causes any significant incidence of human cancer.

00:08:05 California agriculture is a 14 billion dollar cornucopia and a mainstay of our economy.

00:08:12 Observers agree that the impact of the initiative on farming operations would be devastating.

00:08:18 Farmers would be especially hard hit by this initiative in a number of ways.

00:08:24 First of all, it's important to understand that right now the manufacturers of agricultural chemicals

00:08:31 are the ones who have the burden of proving that those chemicals are safe.

00:08:35 That's the system we've got and that's where the burden lies today.

00:08:39 This initiative would turn that burden on its ear.

00:08:42 And instead of forcing the manufacturer to prove that the chemicals are safe,

00:08:46 it would force the farmer to prove that they're safe.

00:08:49 Because of this potential of contamination, I think that most California farmers

00:08:55 will not be willing to take the risk of using the chemicals in the future

00:09:00 and face the potential liability that that might create for them.

00:09:04 Ironically, farmers would in some instances even be prohibited from irrigating their own fields under this initiative.

00:09:12 To the extent that there are naturally occurring carcinogens in the soil,

00:09:17 to the extent that the soil may contain agricultural chemicals which were applied in the past,

00:09:23 those farmers may be unable to irrigate their own fields

00:09:27 simply because the water from that irrigation may run off the land.

00:09:32 Not only farmers, but the entire California economy will be adversely affected by Prop 65.

00:09:39 Now this particular law, this particular initiative, riddled with exemptions

00:09:45 and with a standard that is so extreme, will end up being very, very difficult to enforce

00:09:51 and worse, will impose severe hardship upon California's economy,

00:09:57 upon our farmers that are having tough enough times,

00:10:01 upon our high-tech manufacturers that are under very severe competitive strains,

00:10:08 and others, and for what?

00:10:10 One of the more outrageous myths is this concept that we have no laws dealing with toxics

00:10:15 and if only we could get this toxics initiative passed,

00:10:19 then we could bring the whole matter under control.

00:10:22 Well, the truth is that there have been about 49 laws

00:10:26 dealing with controlling toxic substances in the last couple of years.

00:10:31 California's laws are actually the model for the entire country.

00:10:35 For example, the Porter-Cologne Act prohibits the discharge of anything,

00:10:40 whether it's a toxin or a carcinogen or not, anything,

00:10:43 which may affect the quality of water.

00:10:47 And yet our legislature hasn't been satisfied with that.

00:10:50 It's built on the system we've got.

00:10:52 It's an activist legislature.

00:10:54 It's improving it all the time.

00:10:56 In fact, what one of the Sierra Club officials said,

00:10:59 that is one of the people sponsoring this initiative,

00:11:02 is that we don't need new laws.

00:11:04 We need better enforcement of the laws that we have.

00:11:07 California has one of the most extensive vehicles for enforcement of any state in the country.

00:11:13 The Department of Health Services enforces the hazardous waste law.

00:11:17 The Regional Water Quality Control Boards enforce the laws on clean water.

00:11:22 On top of that, the Attorney General's office

00:11:26 and all of the members of the Attorney General's office

00:11:29 enforce both the hazardous waste law and all the other laws covering environmental problems.

00:11:36 And just in case that's not enough,

00:11:39 every district attorney in the state of California

00:11:42 has the full authority to enforce any violation of the law,

00:11:46 both by seeking civil and criminal penalties.

00:11:50 So there's no shortage of enforcers.

00:11:53 Local groups, neighborhoods, cities and counties

00:11:57 can bring pressure, not just on state authorities,

00:11:59 but on their own elected officials, on their own district attorney,

00:12:03 to enforce the laws.

00:12:05 But let's look at what's suggested.

00:12:07 On top of what we've already got,

00:12:10 the initiative contains a bounty hunter provision,

00:12:13 which allows anyone to bring a suit to enforce for a violation.

00:12:19 And the person that brings that suit

00:12:21 gets to keep a part of the penalties collected as a reward.

00:12:25 Now, the person that brings the suit

00:12:27 doesn't have to have been injured,

00:12:29 doesn't have to have been affected,

00:12:31 doesn't have to have been in the neighborhood when the violation occurred,

00:12:34 doesn't have to have been aware of the violation.

00:12:36 All that person has to have is enough time on his hands

00:12:39 to bring a lawsuit and seek a reward for bringing it for a violation.

00:12:43 It's a system that begs for abuse,

00:12:46 that begs for litigation.

00:12:49 The desire to protect our drinking water cannot be questioned,

00:12:53 but the effectiveness of Prop 65,

00:12:56 with its simplistic approach and bizarre contradictions,

00:12:59 increasingly is being challenged by thoughtful observers.

00:13:03 I have worked for most of my professional life for the state of California,

00:13:07 and from being within the system,

00:13:09 I know that California is far ahead of most of the other states in the country

00:13:15 with regard to its laws that are protective of public health.

00:13:19 And I feel that we already have on the books

00:13:21 all of the laws that we need to do the job of protecting the health of our people.

00:13:27 It would seem that if chemicals really are hazardous,

00:13:30 they're just as hazardous for small employers as they are for large employers.

00:13:35 Devastating to agriculture,

00:13:37 devastating to the manufacturers that are struggling to compete

00:13:41 with other states and with foreign manufacturers.

00:13:45 Well, it is a simple answer. It's more than that.

00:13:48 It's a simplistic answer

00:13:50 and a problem which doesn't lend itself to simple answers.

00:13:54 Beneath Proposition 65's attractively smooth surface

00:13:58 lie uncharted dangers.

00:14:00 Come November, Californians would do well to steer clear of these hidden hazards,

00:14:05 these troubled waters.