Your story (May 19) examining the Bradley campaign's advertisements did a fair job of explaining in some detail the factual basis for our attacks on the Deukmejian Administration's sorry record of dealing with the insurance crisis and threat of toxic pollution. In light of this, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that charges in our ads were not fully documented.
Our ads do not say that Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed every toxic waste bill the Legislature put on his desk. We simply state that he vetoed 21 major measures, including (as your story mentions) a ban on the disposal of liquid toxins in landfills, a bill to improve drinking water quality and remove toxins from underground water supplies, and a major reorganization of the state bureaucracy to improve coordination of toxic waste disposal.
As for the bills Deukmejian has signed, yes, he did permit a $100-million bond issue to clean up hazardous waste sites to go on the ballot, but how much of that money has been spent? According to the auditor-general, a measly $800,000. Yes, he signed legislation to establish permitting standards for underground storage tanks, but he has also twice vetoed funding to hire the people to clean up underground storage tanks leaking contaminants into our groundwater. Of the 60 toxic sites needing cleanup that appeared on the original 1983 state Superfund list, 48 sites still pose a toxic threat to the public, according to the auditor-general, and 178 sites have been added.